January - Feburary 2009 Archive

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, January 01, 2009 - 05:12 pm: Edit

When using CEDS to use a Repair Ship to repair a group (308.131 C), the rule states that the carrier does not need to be at a strategic movement node. However, the rule does not make any mention of adjacent enemy ships to the carrier, like the CEDS replacement (308.132 A3) does.

My question is, do the Repair Ships used for CEDS ignore units adjacent to the carrier for determining if the Repair Ships can reach their target or not?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, January 01, 2009 - 05:47 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
542.21 Deployment: To send a ship from the board to survey duty, the ship is moved to by any legal movement system to the off-map survey area of the owning race, then (on a later turn) moves to the separate survey ship record form.
________________________________________
Past questions have confirmed that you roll on the second turn when you move the survey ship onto the record form. My question:

Since the Hydran PGR starts in the off-map area, can it be moved to the survey ship record form immediately or does it have to wait an extra turn. Please note that the Guild Shipyard (not the Old Colonies SY) is quite likely hidden in the Survey Area itself since the Hydran government/military doesn't even know where it is.

Note: I presume any survey ship converted/produced in the OC SY or at a replacement Capital SY would have to wait the extra turn as they are considerably closer and are at known/well-surveyed locations.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, January 01, 2009 - 06:29 pm: Edit

A further question prompted by Rob's above:

And I guess this is for strat-move in general, not just the case Rob's talking about.

The Federation is at limited war. As such, some Federation ships can freely move through the Kzinti-Fed NZ, but the Klingon ships can't enter the NZ without a declaration of war.

Q: Can Klingon units block Strat-move through NZ hexes that they're not allowed to even enter due to their "peace" status with the Federation?
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 03:23 am: Edit

i've found this on Q&A archive:
"Q: Does (525.318), the rule about the Hydran Pegasus shipyard, mean they get one per turn even if not at war?
A: Yes, it means exactly that. "

1) Isn't a Pegasus per YEAR?

2) Lyran CV is noted as Heavy Carrier in the SIT; if the Hydran capture a Lyran CV does it counts as Heavy Carrier or it is so only for the Lyran player?

3) the question above can be reflected on other similar issues (like Gorn carriers)?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 03:58 am: Edit

Answer to 1 is yes it's one per year. That is an acknowldged error in the Q&A file. FEAR keeps saying he's going to fix it.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 09:17 am: Edit

Additional information on Rob's question:

Fed forces outnumber Klingon forces in adjacent hexes, and if were at a base, the question wouldn't even be asked.

My assertion is that since a node is not necessary, if all other rules are in place, then the repair ships should be allowed, since if a node was present, strat move would be unblocked.
By William J Gauthier (Vortia) on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 10:53 am: Edit

Allrighty. This might be a silly question coming from a guy who's only played F&E once, but what is Economic Exhaustion actually simulating, universe-wise? Why does production capacity falter as the war drags on? Exhaustion of resouces?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 12:40 pm: Edit

WJG:

I moved your question to the General Discussions topic as this is a rules Q&A topic.
By William J Gauthier (Vortia) on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Oops! Sorry, thanks!
By Christopher Scott Evans (Csevans) on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Another ship conversion question:

Can a Lyran DNP be directly converted into an SCS without first de-converting it to the base DN hull?

The latest Lyran sit lists sources of an SCS conversion as DN, CVA, CA and CV, but NOT a DNP.

So, first, is the direct conversion legal?

Two, if it is legal, how much does it cost?

Three, if it is legal, then does such a conversion count ONLY against the Lyran carrier build limit? I think the answer to this third question is 'yes' but I want to make sure.

Thank you.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 03:02 pm: Edit

CSE:

Post this question as a line-item in the SIT topic and the staff can address this during the next Lyran SIT update.

Cheers,
chuck
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 03:26 pm: Edit

Guys, I am sorry for the delay in getting to some of the Q&A. I have been really busy. But, as a top sergeant I once knew always said "The maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters!". I will offer no excuses, but do better. I will have October's questions done this afternoon and will get Novembers started next week. I will do what I can to catch up as quickly as I can.

I appreciate Ryan and Chuck's assistance in pulling up my slack...

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 04:52 pm: Edit

Here are the October questions and answers:

Michael Parker:

Q1: 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?

A1: No, I was wrong. (323.51) allows pursuit after ESSC.


Q2: Are you certain of your ruling on the Lyran’s entering Klingon Neutral Zones on turn 1? There is a previous Q&A ruling that allows this.

R2: Yes, I am aware of that ruling and am overriding it. 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.

Q3: Please confirm your ruling on the Hydran Supply Tug. The is some confusion with the Errata for (509.5).

A3: The Hydran supply tug is a source of supplies, not a supply point. They are different animals. This was brought up in 2002 and SVC ruled the same way. If anyone wants me to bump this up to Col. Strong or SVC please let me know.

Peter Hill:
Q1: What module is (442.323) in?
A1: Advanced Operations

Q2: 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.

A2: Yes, that is correct. You can deliver supplies to another empire only at valid supply point within its original territory.

Q3: 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?

A3: How are these grids separated? You do not list any ships or fleets. As the example exists 1105 and 1404 can both connect to the SB at 1304 and then onto the Kzinti capital; 1704 connects to 1803 and then to the Kzinti Capital. There are no separate grids.

Q4: When does the distribution of EPs in a partial grid occur? When the grid is created or during the next income phase with whatever grids exist at that time?

A4: This can only happen in the next economic phase. The status of that grid can be affected by between the time of creation and the economic phase.

Q5: 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? }

Q6: 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?
Q7: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?

R7: The rules do not specify how to handle the designation of EPs in multiple tugs. Other dealings with Economics are public and open to review by everyone. So, the number of EPs on each tug is also public.

Q8: 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"?

R8: The Tug can stop at the destination or back to the origination. It is not forced to return to a doomed location while evacuating EPs.

Charles Chapel:
Q: 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?

A: Charles, you are welcome. There is no CVL on the construction schedule. There is a CVL allowable substitution within certain limits. There is a difference.

Ezekiel Carpenter-Hyland:
Q1: When a planet in the capital hex looses all PDUs, can new ones produced in the capital shipyard be added without a tug?

A1: Correct you do not need a tug to deploy PDU/PGBs in the capital hex. (508.32)

Q2: If so, do they become active on the next turn?

A2: They become active the turn after they are emplaced. (508.33)

Q3: 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)?

A3: Devastate the planet again before the setup is complete. (508.21)

Robert Padilla:
Q1: War Dreadnoughts were added with Strategic Operations. Some 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)?

A1: They are major conversions and as such are limited. The Hydran SIT only limits the conversions, not the substitution. There needs to be an allowed substitution in the racial (700) section of the rules to allow the substitution. Otherwise, they are conversion only constructions.

Q2: How many PF Modules, if any, can a Sector Base carry? Rule 452.0 is silent on this point, as is rule 441.0.

A2: 1 PF module according to the SSD.

Q3: 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.

A3: Yes, according to (320.514) the blockade running ship may end its turn in the objective hex.

Bill Stec:
Q1: 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?

A1: (442.53)Effective Y178, SBs gain the ability to produce one DW instead of one FF.

Kosta Michalopoulos:
Q: 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.

R: Any entry into an empire’s adjacent NZ hexes is considered entry into that empire’s territory for fleet activation.

Larry Ramey:

Q: 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)

A: 22 Jul 2008 version of Kzinti SIT, pg 2, 1st line under the BC category.

Fabio Poli:
Q1: Can hybrids fighters be used in fighter raids?

A1: No, see (320.347).

Q2: 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?

A2: A Tug with Carrier Pods must be escorted per (320.347).

Q3: What happen when the intended target of a special raid reacts in the "attack hex"?

A4: The raid will happen in the attack hex instead.

Q5: I'm going to commando raid a BATS with 3xCA, what is the procedure?

A5: The defender chooses how many of the units other than the defending base to be involved in the defense of the base. These then fight one a round of ESSC. If your Commando raider survives it can then attack the Base with the G attack(s).

Prime teams sabotage:

Q6: Can a prime team do a mission against a neutral or future belligerent race? (can't find a "no" in the rules)

R6: No.

Q7: Can a prime team do a mission IN a neutral or future belligerant race?

R7: No.

Q8: Can the Hydran PGR (survey class of PGS) be taken for free?

A8: No, the three available PGS are PGS when they become available for use. The fourth PGS needs to be converted to a PFT before use per (317.4). They can be converted at the Old Colonies SB for 3 EP into a PGR if the Hydran player wishes.

Christopher Evans:
Q: Is this a legal double conversion?

L-DND + L-CA to L-DNP

A: You are changing the base hull type from CA or DND to DN and then modifying that hull into a variant meeting the requirements for a two-step conversion (437.0) L-CA + L-DND (525.326) > L-DN (3 EP) > L-DNP (3 EP) – (1 EP) = L-CA to L-DNP (7 EP). No “double dagger” notation needed since it is the CA that is being converted and the SIT already allows for that. (525.326) allows for the DND to be used as part of the conversion to the DN in the first step.

Matthew Smith:
Q1: 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?

A: See (602.49) specifically sub sections C and D.

Q2: 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?

A2: Yes, as long as the Kzinti are not claiming Neutral Zone hexes.

Trent Telenko:
Q: 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?

A: No, per (203.73) the reserve must stay together unless they have to leave ships behind to counter pin any units they can’t go around per (203.741)

Michael Parker:

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 a lot 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.

A: Per FEDS: 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
Anything else, including diplomatic income is not affected or affects exhaustion or borrowing limits/calculations.

Fabio Poli:
Q: Does a diplomatic team interfere (with its prime team) in the prime team sabotage mission against the ship carrying the diplomatic 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 it be on a allied ship, base, planet or on a neutral (or future belligerent) base or planet?
(I mean could I leave a diplomatic team at my ally capitol and move away the ship which carried it?)

A: The Diplomatic team on a Klingon Diplomatic ship is unable to separate from the ship, unless it is directly attacked or suffers a loss in a mission. This is from a previous ruling.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 03:45 pm: Edit

Hey Mike,

I don't think this ruling was ever published in a CapLog.
________________________________________
Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:51 pm: Edit
===================================

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 02:54 am: Edit


Nick:

Recommend a note in the next CL Rules & Rulings article that we note the missing Hydran GRV is added to the Home Fleet.

ANSWER: noted.

===================================
________________________________________
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 11:03 am: Edit

>Q8: Can the Hydran PGR (survey class of PGS) be
>taken for free?
>
>A8: No, the three available PGS are PGS when they
>become available for use. The fourth PGS needs to be
>converted to a PFT before use per (317.4). They can
>be converted at the Old Colonies SB for 3 EP into a
>PGR if the Hydran player wishes.

Mike,

What has this answer got to do with the free Guild produced PG hulls?

There are no other limits -- besides the F.E.A.R./G.O.D. ruling of only four PGV with free fighter factors -- on PG hull production in the rules set.

Are you adding, via ruling, a new build limit that eliminates Guild new PG hull production from the pool of hulls capable of becoming PGRs?

Thus requiring the Hydrans to use an existing PGS and major conversion to make a PGR?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 11:21 am: Edit

Trent Telenko:

Q: Concerning the Hydran free production of one PGS hull ship by the Guilds per year: There are no other limits -- besides the F.E.A.R./G.O.D. ruling of only four PGV with free fighter factors -- on PG hull production in the rules set.

Are you adding, via ruling, a new build limit that eliminates Guild new PG hull production from the pool of hulls capable of becoming PGRs?

Thus requiring the Hydrans to use an existing PGS and major conversion to make a PGR?

A: (525.318) is very clear that only PGS, PGC, PFT, PGF, PGG, or PGV (subject to year of availability) are available from the Guilds. To make it into a PGR will require the use of a conversion from a PGS and 3 EP. It does not take a Major Conversion to do so. (542) allows the Hydrans to produce Survey Ships under those rules, not a freebie. The Guilds would not help the Hydran Government explore the area they want for themselves.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Does the Klingon East Fleet's deployment area still overlap that of the TBS (I've searched the forum and haven't found anything that recinds this)? If so then does an overlapping deployment area cause any problems?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 01:12 pm: Edit

Peter Hill:

Q: Does the Klingon East Fleet's deployment area still overlap that of the TBS (I've searched the forum and haven't found anything that rescinds this)? If so then does an overlapping deployment area cause any problems?

A: (601.2) provides for the transfer of command from the Tholian Border Squadron to the Eastern Fleet when the Tholian Border Squadron is released to move elsewhere in the Klingon Empire. There is no overlap. The starbases at 1716 and 2316 are available to the East Fleet for repairs and conversions (rotate the ships to be converted as part of the six ships an unreleased fleet can move in a turn).
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 01:21 pm: Edit

I'm talking pre-TBS release.

Eastern Fleet: Set up within 2 hexes of Federation Neutral Zone (not 1707-1708). This definition includes hexes 2517, 2518 and 2519 (since 2617 is considered a Federation NZ hex).

TBS: Set up in 2517, 2518 and/or 2519; two ships in 2318 (can rotate between bases and planet while inactive). This also includes hexes 2517, 2518, 2519.

Ie, the only TBS hex not overlapping the Eastern Fleet area seems to be 2318.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Peter Hill:

I'm talking pre-TBS release.

Eastern Fleet: Set up within 2 hexes of Federation Neutral Zone (not 1707-1708). This definition includes hexes 2517, 2518 and 2519 (since 2617 is considered a Federation NZ hex).

TBS: Set up in 2517, 2518 and/or 2519; two ships in 2318 (can rotate between bases and planet while inactive). This also includes hexes 2517, 2518, 2519.

Ie, the only TBS hex not overlapping the Eastern Fleet area seems to be 2318.

Ruling: I couldn't find anything covering this, so here is a ruling on it: The East Fleet deployment zone is exclusive of the Tholian Border Squadron deployment zone until the Tholian Border Squadron is released and its deployment zone is turned over to the East Fleet per (601.2)
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 04:54 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
A: (525.318) is very clear that only PGS, PGC, PFT, PGF, PGG, or PGV (subject to year of availability) are available from the Guilds.
________________________________________
This rule was written before the PGR was introduced into the game. Can you please "bump" it up to Chuck or SVC for clarification.

I could see it having a limit of 4 like the PGV or even being placed under the same 4 limit as the PGV. IE: 4 PGVs and 4 PGRs OR 4 PGV/PGR ships free, mix and match your choice.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 05:14 pm: Edit

M Lui:

Before I do, I want clarification from you why the Hydrans should be given, for free, four more survey ships? I don't see a really good reason right now.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 05:19 pm: Edit

He's trying to earn his "#1 Hydran partisan" scout badge and decoder ring?
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 05:41 pm: Edit

*Line!*
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, January 05, 2009 - 07:10 am: Edit

Like I said, you could put them under the PGV limit. 4 ships of the PGV/PGR class in total. Which would be more valuable to any particular player? 3 PGVs and 1 PGR? 2 and 2?

But I'm mainly just arguing that they weren't around when the original rule and adjustments (4 PGVs) were done and so should be looked at again. Besides which, there is very little difference between the PGS and PGR in normal combat, and you can only send 2 PGRs off-map after the HDW "freebie". And on-map survey exposes them to raids since there isn't that much territory that can't be reached by a fast or X ship from Lyran or Klingon space.....once the Hydrans get back on the map. So having more than 2, maybe 3, only means that they are PGSs with a fancy name (and 1 fighter).
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Monday, January 05, 2009 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Are "chained substitutions" allowed?

For example, the Hydrans allow the following substitutions:
o Can substitute LN for HR. (DD for CW)
o Can substitute UH for LN. (CV for DD)

Does this mean that I can substitute a UH for an HR in the production shedule? (CV for CW)

I have been assuming this is the case (otherwise how can I ever substitute a UH?) but technically the rules state that only the substitutions actually listed in the OOB are allowed!
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Monday, January 05, 2009 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Rule (431.8) specifically states "You cannot substitute a ship, then convert it during construction into the originally scheduled type."

This is presumably to prevent odd "discounts" such as the Lyrans building an extra cheap DN (Ie, DN -subst-> CA -convert-> DN costing 14 ep instead of 16 ep).

A recent build I did doesn't violate the letter of this rule at all but does seem to violate the spirit. Specifically:

Hydrans can build a UH by:
o HR -subst-> LN -subst-> UH (cost 24 ep).
o HR -subst-> LN -conv-> UH (cost 22 ep).

Should this be allowed?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, January 05, 2009 - 02:53 pm: Edit

"Does this mean that I can substitute a UH for an HR in the production shedule? (CV for CW) "

Yes


"This is presumably to prevent odd "discounts" such as the Lyrans building an extra cheap DN (Ie, DN -subst-> CA -convert-> DN costing 14 ep instead of 16 ep).
"

Correct.


"Should this be allowed? '

yes. You just can't sub a LN for a UH, then convert the LN to a UH
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, January 05, 2009 - 03:11 pm: Edit

Peter Hill:
Q1: Are "chained substitutions" allowed?

For example, the Hydrans allow the following substitutions:
o Can substitute LN for HR. (DD for CW)
o Can substitute UH for LN. (CV for DD)

Does this mean that I can substitute a UH for an HR in the production schedule? (CV for CW)

I have been assuming this is the case (otherwise how can I ever substitute a UH?) but technically the rules state that only the substitutions actually listed in the OOB are allowed!

A1: Yes, this is called a substitution for a substitution or in slang “subbing for a sub”. You can do this with other races, i.e. Substituting 2xFF for a CL and then substituting one of them into a EFF and the other into a SF.

Q2: Rule (431.8) specifically states "You cannot substitute a ship, then convert it during construction into the originally scheduled type."

This is presumably to prevent odd "discounts" such as the Lyrans building an extra cheap DN (Ie, DN -subst-> CA -convert-> DN costing 14 ep instead of 16 ep).

A recent build I did doesn't violate the letter of this rule at all but does seem to violate the spirit. Specifically:

Hydrans can build a UH by:
o HR -subst-> LN -subst-> UH (cost 24 ep).
o HR -subst-> LN -conv-> UH (cost 22 ep).

Should this be allowed?

A2: This cost differential is from Hydrans just being plain weird and (Insert Tony T’s line here). The LN base hull (4 EPs) is discounted like a War Destroyer to keep its cost in line with the KN when you add the fighters. This is just part of what the LN is. (431.8) does not apply unless you started with a UH and subbed a LN then did a LN>UH conversion. So, yes you can do a HR substitution into a LN then convert that LN into a UH for 22 EP.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, January 07, 2009 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Q. (424.33) Does the failure to roll a 1 when a ship is destroyed in circumstanctes that would allow it to produce EPs under (439.0) Salvage mean that the ship in question is lost without producing salvage at all, or does it produce EPs under (439.0)?

If this has been answered elsewhere please direct me to the appropriate link.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, January 07, 2009 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Thomas Mathews:
Q: (424.33) Does the failure to roll a 1 when a ship is destroyed in circumstances that would allow it to produce EPs under (439.0) Salvage mean that the ship in question is lost without producing salvage at all, or does it produce EPs under (439.0)?

A: The procedure is to check for possible entry into the Repair Depot (424.33) if desired for the two year trip through the space junkyard, then, those that failed getting into the Depot will then check if they are eligible for salvage and then added to the economy at the end of the combat round per (439.0)
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, January 07, 2009 - 03:25 pm: Edit

It should be noted that Thomas' question at 2:10 p.m. is an excellent example of how a question should be written with rules references. It helps me get a question out quickly and accuratly if I have rules references in the questions.

Thank you.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, January 07, 2009 - 06:59 pm: Edit

Mike,

According to (424.37) ships must be eligible for salvage in order to qualify for Depot Repair so shouldn't you check for salvage eligibility first?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, January 08, 2009 - 09:13 am: Edit

Q (433.0) Can a variant (i.e. MEC) be converted into a different variant (i.e. MDC) at the cost of the conversion of a regular production ship (i.e. CM) or is the ship required to be converted twice, once back to the original configuration, then a second time to the new configuration subject to availibilty, conversion limits and racial limits?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 10:28 am: Edit

A question about ESSC:

323.52 states: "Salvage and Depot Level Repair rolls are handled normally using those rule systems."

The Salvage rules (439.0) state the following:
439.16: "Ships destroyed after single-combat [(310.0 or 504.4)] count as salvage for the winning ship if it would otherwise qualify (in supply, not adopted or expedition, etc.)."

Since the second sentence of ESSC (323.0) states that "This supercedes (310.0) and (318.7) which are canceled and replaced by this rule effective immediately.", does that mean that in the Salvage rules, rule number 310.0 should be replaced by 323.0? And also, if the ESSC is not single combat, who does the Salvage for a destroyed ship go to, the winner or the owner?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 07:38 pm: Edit

For the online OOB dated 1 Dec 08.
Posted at http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/F&EOrderofBattle.pdf

Addition to 711.3
DD for DW once per year.
CL for CA/CW once per year.

Both these are listed in the SIT.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 11:00 pm: Edit

Salvage no longer goes to the victor; salvage goes to the owner if in supply, not adopted or not expedition.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 11:14 pm: Edit

"Salvage no longer goes to the victor"

If one side is completely obliterated, it probably should (even if it isn't small scale combat)
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 08:00 am: Edit

Joe, I agree with you under the following condition for forces not using (323.0), That atleast 1/3 of the victor's orginal forces (read ships) remain in the battle hex. If less than 1/3 remain the both sides recover salvage subject to (439.0). For forces using (323.0) when all opposing forces are destroyed then the victor should get salvage subject to (439.0).

Chuck or Mike, if these needs to be moved or reposted elsewhere, please let me know.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 09:38 am: Edit

Ugh.

Too complicated.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 09:50 am: Edit

Joe, you would have to control the hex to get salvage for/from fleet actions. The fleet action would likely cover a much larger area than small scale combat would. The larger the area the more time required to search it.

Small Scale combat would be in a smaller area and the victor would easily have the time to grab the spoils then run away.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 10:55 am: Edit

Guys, if you want to discuss a something new such as Salvage to the victor, then you need to put it in new proposals. It will be deleted here.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 07:27 am: Edit

Under (308.2) during (307.0) Pursuit, do both sides allocate remaining damage in such a way as to minimize the number of plus or minus points or is there no limit?

I'm sure various groups have their own "house rule" regarding this sitiuation. During the actual battle I can see where it would be advantageous to have several plus or minus points available. However at the end of the battle hex I believe all damage should be calculated to limit those plus and minus points to 0 as close as possbile.
By Lee Hanna (Lee) on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 01:36 pm: Edit

I have some questions, but the above instructions say to search the Rulings file. Where is that? I see no obvious buttons or links?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 07:57 am: Edit

Mike, I was wondering if you maybe forgot about these two questions, as they have not been answered yet and were posted a while ago (or maybe they've been sent up the chain?):
________________________________________
Quote:
Rob's Original Question:
When using CEDS to use a Repair Ship to repair a group (308.131 C), the rule states that the carrier does not need to be at a strategic movement node. However, the rule does not make any mention of adjacent enemy ships to the carrier, like the CEDS replacement (308.132 A3) does.

My question is, do the Repair Ships used for CEDS ignore units adjacent to the carrier for determining if the Repair Ships can reach their target or not?

A further question prompted by Rob's above:

And I guess this is for strat-move in general, not just the case Rob's talking about.

The Federation is at limited war. As such, some Federation ships can freely move through the Kzinti-Fed NZ, but the Klingon ships can't enter the NZ without a declaration of war.

Q: Can Klingon units block Strat-move through NZ hexes that they're not allowed to even enter due to their "peace" status with the Federation?

Additional information on Rob's question:

Fed forces outnumber Klingon forces in adjacent hexes, and if were at a base, the question wouldn't even be asked.

My assertion is that since a node is not necessary, if all other rules are in place, then the repair ships should be allowed, since if a node was present, strat move would be unblocked.

And a final clarification: The question came about because the repair ships must enter an empty hex that is adjacent to both the carriers (at 1902) to be repaired, and to the Klingon ships that could block strat movement (1802, 1803 and 2001)
________________________________________


Matt's question:
________________________________________
Quote:
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.)
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 Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 11:17 am: Edit

When were they asked? I am two months behind in questions. I have November and December's to do and have been keeping up with January's as they come in.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 11:24 am: Edit

Mike,

December. (I also added something to Rob's question for your consideration, as I'm in that game also)

Any chance you can pick up the pace on the backlog?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Working on it. Work is slamming me right now and my Son's Cub Scout Pack is rechartering and I am doing it... Give me a week more and I should have November and December caught up
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 12:45 pm: Edit

That's great, thanks! Just wanted to make sure they didn't fall between the cracks.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 05:22 pm: Edit

Here is November's...

Fabio Poli:
Q: Do a diplomatic team interfere (with its prime team) in the prime team sabotage mission against the ship carrying the diplomatic 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, and planet.
Could be on a allied ship, base, planet or on a neutral (or future belligerent) base or planet?
(I mean could I leave a diplomatic team at my ally capitol and move away the ship who carried it?)

A: Per a previous ruling, 15 April 08 4:41 p.m., the Diplomatic team and the D7N cannot be separated by the Klingon player. Enemy action can eliminate one or more teams but the Klingon would need to bring it up to full strength before building any more Diplomatic teams. If the D7N is destroyed then the teams use rule (540.132) to see if they share the fate of their ship.

Clarification on what is and isn’t affected by economic exhaustion:
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

Peter Hill:

Q1: F&E-2K lists raw SP's as standard escorts. Do they cost 1ep to create?

A1: No, they are Ad Hoc Escorts if using Fighter Operations until the SPM becomes available in Y175 and you pay the normal cost for them. If not using Fighter Operations then the group would be treated like any other group counter.

Q2: What's up with SPM's? They are in the old Carrier War but not listed in Federation & Empire 2000.

A2: They are in Fighter Operations.

Michael Lui:

Q1: Can a MMG be included in a battle that has a MB being set up?

A1: A MB being setup per rule (510.231) is a base and as such is eligible per (321.42) for a MMG to be present on either side. Granted, the only way to destroy the MB is to kill the unit setting it up, but the MMG benefits are more than providing a G factor to attack a base.

Michael Lui:

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.
I am trying to figure out how the Coalition has had some Alliance ships reacting into this hex and allowing a reserve force to move into it… That aside, I will take the facts as to the situation, not how it happened…

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.

Q1. Is what he wants permissible or must he also have the base battle?

A1: The Coalition player can still retreat after the approach battle. As this is the end of one round of combat at step 7 of the combat round, this will effectively destroy any bases in the hex that cannot retreat, even by slow retreat. Any cripples are subject to pursuit (307.0) and any slow units are subject to slow retreat (302.742).

Q2: Can he abandon the MB under "Withdrawal Before Combat"?

A2: No, he cannot. The Alliance player is the Offensive player and only the defensive player can withdraw before combat (302.1). You stated the Alliance player had used a reserve fleet to get to this hex; hence the Coalition is the offensive player.

Q3: Can he declare the MB is not being set up because of the fighters that managed to react into his hex?

A3: Where did the fighters come from in your scenario? It appears you have not provided me with full information; as such you do not get a full answer. Please repost.

Christopher Evans:

Q: Can G units from ground assault ships devastate a planet if all of the PDU's have been destroyed?

R: No, G units can only eliminate other G units, PDUs, or conduct SIDs. Planetary devastation is only accomplished by orbital bombardment.

Kevin Howard:

Q: Can the Romulan build a BEV in place of the WH carrier group. As in, instead of counting against the SPB build limit?

A: Per SVC, yes.

Kevin Howard:

Q: Is there any rule requiring fighters based on carriers not in the battleline to be transferred to carriers currently in the battleforce?

A: SOP Phase 5 – Step 6E: Conduct Ship transfers of fighters (501.6)… The language for the transfer of fighters is “can”, not required. So, no, you are not required to fill the bays of your carriers with your reserves, but you opponent needs to be aware of your fighter statuses in your bays.

Joe Stevenson:

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....

Q: 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?

A: As long as the fleet area of the Limited War has a Tug, no.

William Jockusch:

Q: 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?

A: 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. (Thanks, Joe!)

William Jockusch:

Q: Can PDU fighters be used in an approach battle over:
A) a capital hex?
B) a normal planet?

A: Yes to both. (302.222) lets the fighters from the PDUs be used in the approach battle counting against the command limits.

Jonathan Jordan:

Q: 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?

A: Use the existing schedule, like the Hydrans and any excess EPs from peacetime production are lost. Like the Hydrans, they are ramping up their production to support their ally.

William Wood:

Q: 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?

A: Yes, you can do this. But any pursuit will have the defender essentially getting a free shot on any cripples you have.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, January 16, 2009 - 04:57 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
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.
I am trying to figure out how the Coalition has had some Alliance ships reacting into this hex and allowing a reserve force to move into it… That aside, I will take the facts as to the situation, not how it happened...
Q3: Can he declare the MB is not being set up because of the fighters that managed to react into his hex?
A3: Where did the fighters come from in your scenario? It appears you have not provided me with full information; as such you do not get a full answer. Please repost.
________________________________________
Basically he moved this force adjacent to a SB (and the fleet on it) that he thought he had completely pinned but was mistaken so 1 SE of fighters reacted into his hex.
________________________________________
Quote:
Q1. Is what he wants permissible or must he also have the base battle?

A1: The Coalition player can still retreat after the approach battle. As this is the end of one round of combat at step 7 of the combat round, this will effectively destroy any bases in the hex that cannot retreat, even by slow retreat. Any cripples are subject to pursuit (307.0) and any slow units are subject to slow retreat (302.742).
________________________________________
So what you're saying is that FRDs with tugs will never be in normal combat as long as there is no base or PDU in their hex and the owner doesn't want to keep the hex? You can only attack them in Slow Pursuit, Raids, and when stacked with bases/PDUs?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, January 16, 2009 - 11:46 pm: Edit

Michael Lui:
________________________________________
Quote:
So what you're saying is that FRDs with tugs will never be in normal combat as long as there is no base or PDU in their hex and the owner doesn't want to keep the hex? You can only attack them in Slow Pursuit, Raids, and when stacked with bases/PDUs?
________________________________________


Is this a formal appeal? If so, you need to state that. I will not argue an answer or ruling.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 07:51 am: Edit

No, I'm just asking for a clarification. Your ruling does have this exact effect on FRDs and I want to make sure this was your intent. After all, it may change how FRD parks are done for everybody if they are now immune from normal combat.

Just put your FRD park in a hex adjacent to a BATS (fighters can react in), over-cripple in the last of the 1-3 Approach Battles to help protect your FRDs (keep a Penal ship in the same hex if you're a Klingon for the Slow Pursuit to make your FRDs even harder to kill), and retreat everything to the adjacent BATS so it can all still be repaired without a problem (and even with a benefit as the BATS can help repair as well). And since it is a pursuit combat the attacker can't retreat 1 hex before figuring out supply for retrograde and retrograde paths.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 10:39 am: Edit

In Special Operations (517.13) it states that Lyran K-pods and Kligon pods may be mutually "borrowed". But how does this borrowing occur? Pods can only be dispatched to ships in their supply grid and normally Lyran/Hydran ships can not access the other's grid. Does this mean that only Homeless ships & Expeditionary fleets can "borrow" these pods?

If a Lyran is 'borrowing' a Klingon VP (rather than its own Lyran built ones) who supplies the replacement fighters? Ie, do they need to be drawn from Klingon supply lines as there is no actual conversion to Lyran technology?

If drawn from Lyran supply lines, how are "borrowed" KVP's resupplied with fighters before Lyrans develop their own (non-base) carriers?

Carrier War lists the Klingons as starting with 4 carrier pods but does not specify if they are VP2 or VP3. Which are they?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 10:47 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Carrier War lists the Klingons as starting with 4 carrier pods but does not specify if they are VP2 or VP3. Which are they?
________________________________________


VP2 if you're talking at start OOB, the VP3 isn't avail until Y172. That info is available on the SIT.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Thanks. CW/SO gave the costs & counters but no explanation or production dates which was confusing.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 01:01 pm: Edit

Mike - sorry for posting here.

Michael L - Remember they must survive slow Persuit and you have to have a valid retrograde route.

So, for each FRD, you must have 2 7 Defensive compot ships or 1 Tug.

And, if there is no Valid Retrograde route - they die. So if the BATS next to your FRD park is also attacked (even by 1 ship) and is currently not resolved - it isn't a valid retrograde route!

In other words, FRD's parks can run - but they are not invincible (in running safely!)
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 05:18 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
206.0 Retrograde Movement

Retrograde movement takes place after combat.
________________________________________
You have until the end of "Step 5 Combat" to clear the hex of enemy units before you go to "Step 6 Retrograde Movement".
________________________________________
Quote:
So, for each FRD, you must have 2 7 Defensive compot ships or 1 Tug.
________________________________________
Yes, that is in the previous post.
________________________________________
Quote:
In other words, FRD's parks can run - but they are not invincible (in running safely!)
________________________________________
They don't have to run safely. Think about it. You can deploy your FRD park 3 hexes away from an enemy capital as long as you outnumber him locally (this counts nearby garrisons so he can outnumber you) by about 18 ships (not counting Reserves) and have a base, even a MB or captured enemy planet, within 3 hexes-but not in the same hex. Being adjacent to a BATS (any base really) is just more convenient.

Just surround your park with the "standard" anti-drone-raider force of 18 FFs and when he comes in, send your Reserves to the FF battles. He can't retreat 1 hex if he pursues the FRDs and he must send enough forces to the 3FF adjacent hex forces to be sure to win against them and all of the Reserves so he has a retrograde path. Otherwise he just sent his fleet out of supply into a ring of FFs that are also cutting his retrograde routes and he cannot get his fleet back to his capital for your assault. So he will be fighting a major battle without the benefit of his defenses, to the death, to get his FRD attack force back on the same turn he sent it out. And, of course, if he over-commits to the FF battle you can send your Reserves to the FRD park instead.

BTW, I do look at all of the F+E section so you can post any replies in the Discussion thread without cluttering up the FEARs section.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 12:55 pm: Edit

M. Lu,

If he's out of supply he'll just conduct a fighting retreat over a group of FFs and kill them.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, January 19, 2009 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Mike

Do regular ships, not Tugs, have to be assigned to tow FRDs during Operational Movement to be able to tow them during Retrograde movement from a slow retreat battle or can any two 7+ factor ships tow them at that point?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Here is December 08's questions

Paul Howard:
Q: Is there anything to stop you Retrograding to a Base, which prior to Retrogrades isn't part of the main Supply Grid?

A: Per (206.21) any base can be considered when retrograding. So you would have to block the retrograde path (206.22) to all other retrograde points to either force the retrograde to the base out of supply or the ships stay where they are, out of supply.

Ruling for CL39: 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.

John Robinson:

Q: 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 conversion (2 ep + fighters).

A: Per (433.454) last sentence: CVAs can only be produced in a hex with a working capital shipyard (515.52). Per (502.72) SCS production counts against CVA limits so, the SCS can only be produced in a hex with a working capital shipyard. This is for all CVAs and SCSs in the game unless a special rule allows it (i.e. PAL to IC in the Hydran off map area during the reconstruction of the Hydran shipyard (525.316)). Also, note that a shipyard under construction in a new capital can do one major conversion if a Starbase is present. (511.33).

Daniel Knipfer:

Q: (in reference to the above question by J Robinson) 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?

A: Per (525.67) the ROC counts against PFT limits, not CVA or SCS limits.

Chuck Strong, FEDS:
R: 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.

Peter Hill:

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.

Q: 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?

A: The EPs would be divided when the EPs are collected. This is done only during the economic phase, specifically Phase 1C3 of the sequence of play.

William Wood:

Q1: Is there a restriction on the number of minor ship yards or conversion facilities in the off-map area?

A1: Just the empire’s limits. The off map area is large enough to support all these facilities.

Q2: Can PRDs be constructed at planets in the off-map area?

A2: Yes, and colonies. The limit would be the number of planets and colonies.

Kosta Michalopoulos:

Q: Where does the Hydran special supply Tug (509.5) start?

A: The Hydran special supply Tug (509.5) starts with the Expeditionary Fleet at hex 716. Any references to it starting anywhere else are wrong.

Michael Lui:

Concerning your statements and quotes on the Romulan modular DNs: What is your question? There is no question in anything you have written. You have only statements. Give me a specific question to answer and stop fishing…

Paul Howard:

Q: Could a PDU be a 'Flagship'?

A: A PDU has a command rating of 0 according to the current SIT. So, no, it cannot be a flagship.

William Jockusch:

Q: 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?

A: With no other factors to open the retrograde path, the PDU’s fighters cannot, per (206.22), open the path.

Matthew Smith

Q: Is the flagship selection step in withdrawal before combat (302.133) for the defender skipped for the first round following withdrawal before combat, or is another choice done on the first battle round after the withdrawals?

A: The Sequence of Play, step 5-1D, states the flagship chosen in the withdrawal must be the flagship in the first combat round.

Jon Berry

Q: Is it possible to (through some dint of insanity) convert a CA-tug, like the Hydran or Gorn tugs back into normal CAs?

A: You may always convert a variant of a base hull back into the base hull for 1 EP (433.24).

Fabio Poli
Q: About Hydran Kiowa war dreadnought.

The SIT says that a 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!

A: You can produce a Kiowa instead of a Paladin when the production schedule allows.

Ruling: The ISC PF1 should be Y182F. (FERT ruling)

Robert Padilla

Q: When using CEDS to use a Repair Ship to repair a group (308.131 C), the rule states that the carrier does not need to be at a strategic movement node. However, the rule does not make any mention of adjacent enemy ships to the carrier, like the CEDS replacement (308.132 A3) does.

My question is, do the Repair Ships used for CEDS ignore units adjacent to the carrier for determining if the Repair Ships can reach their target or not?

A: The use of one Repair ship to do a CEDS repair follows the repair ship rules in (308.131C) using the Repair ship restrictions.

Michael Lui

Q: Past questions have confirmed that you roll on the second turn when you move the survey ship onto the record form. My question:

Since the Hydran PGR starts in the off-map area, can it be moved to the survey ship record form immediately or does it have to wait an extra turn. Please note that the Guild Shipyard (not the Old Colonies SY) is quite likely hidden in the Survey Area itself since the Hydran government/military doesn't even know where it is.

Note: I presume any survey ship converted/produced in the OC SY or at a replacement Capital SY would have to wait the extra turn as they are considerably closer and are at known/well-surveyed locations.

A: The PGR, in the off map area, not the survey area, still takes one turn to get to the off map area. If it started in the off map area it would take an additional turn to get to the off map area.

Matthew Smith

The Federation is at limited war. As such, some Federation ships can freely move through the Kzinti-Fed NZ, but the Klingon ships can't enter the NZ without a declaration of war.

Q: Can Klingon units block strategic movement through NZ hexes that they're not allowed to even enter due to their "peace" status with the Federation?

R: No, the ships would have to exert some influence into the NZ hexes and since they are at limited war to the Federation, not full war, they would not. Note that (602.49) does not allow the Federation to capture the NZ hexes, but it does allow them to build bases and have ships in the Federation/Kzinti NZ hexes.

Fabio Poli

I've found this on Q&A archive:
"Q: Does (525.318), the rule about the Hydran Pegasus shipyard, mean they get one per turn even if not at war?
A: Yes, it means exactly that."

Q1: Isn't a Pegasus per YEAR?

A1: Yes, one per year.

Q2: Lyran CV is noted as Heavy Carrier in the SIT; if the Hydran capture a Lyran CV does it counts as Heavy Carrier or it is so only for the Lyran player?

R2: It is still a heavy carrier, no matter who is in control of it.

Q3: the question above can be reflected on other similar issues (like Gorn carriers)?

R3: Same applies to other racial specific carriers, to be consistent.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 03:55 pm: Edit

"A: The use of one Repair ship to do a CEDS repair follows the repair ship rules in (308.131C) using the Repair ship restrictions. "

Mike,

I'm not sure that actually removes the ambiguity.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 04:41 pm: Edit

Mike, I had a couple of thoughts about some of the answers you gave, so if you don't mind I'm going to re-ask the questions but with a little more detail.


"Q: Could a PDU be a 'Flagship'?

A: A PDU has a command rating of 0 according to the current SIT. So, no, it cannot be a flagship."


Me: I think you might be making an incorrect assumption here, mainly because the original question didn't describe what was intended with the ruling.

Your assumption is that a command rating of 'zero' logically means it cannot be the command platform. I disagree. If it could not be the command ship, then it would have listed the command rating as 'N/A'. With a command rating of zero, it *should* be able to command a force consisting of exactly zero ships.

Now, if that sounds like jibberish, let me explain the thinking behind that logic. I got a pair of ships at a BATS, and the enemy's come in force. I want to pull those two ships out, the BATS is doomed anyway. I select my three flagship candidates, and lo and behold, the BATS has a command rating of 9, so it's one of my three candidates. I select the BATS, and my two other ships are 'unchosen flagship candidates' and are exempt from the battle. BATS dies, ships retreat.

Same scenario, but this time I'm defending a planet. Enemy's got enough force to wipe out whatever stands in its way in one round, so I gotta run. I chose my three flagship candidates, the two ships and... the PDU, which is a base with a command rating of zero. Nevermind that it couldn't actually command any ships, as there won't be any ships to command. I select the PDU as the flagship, exempt the two ships from the battle. PDU in command controls exactly zero ships, PDU dies, pair of ships retreat after the battle.

That's what was intended with the question, and looking strictly at the rules, I don't believe there is any reason to assume that a command rating of zero equates to no command rating at all. In light of that, can you please reconsider the question? Thanks.

*~*

Another one:

"Q: Is the flagship selection step in withdrawal before combat (302.133) for the defender skipped for the first round following withdrawal before combat, or is another choice done on the first battle round after the withdrawals?

A: The Sequence of Play, step 5-1D, states the flagship chosen in the withdrawal must be the flagship in the first combat round."


Me: Again, the questioner didn't clarify what he was looking for. I don't think he was asking if the flagship was re-selected for the battle - the rules clearly state the flagship must be the same - but instead, he was asking if the *process* of selection was followed, even if the actual selection is already known. Reason: If the process is followed for the first round of battle, then two more flagship candidates will be rejected and therefore exempt from the battleline.

Consider the previously published tac-note 'Eight will get you One'. 8 ships are attacked, they attempt withdrawal from battle, enemy opposes. Player selects 3 flagship candidates, choses the flag, withdraws half their ships from the hex. 4 remain, of which 50% (2) would be forced into the battle, including the selected flagship. But the player goes to set up the battleforce, following the flagship selection procedure - selecting 3 flagship candidates, chosing one (predetermined as the one selected in the withdrawal step), and the other two are unchosen flagship candidates and therefore exempt from battle. Only two ships remain, half are required in battle. Only the flagship need bravely face his doom.

This was the basis of allowing the tac-note, which was accepted when published. With that in mind, can you reconsider the question and your ruling.

Thanks, Mike.

*~*

Everyone, sorry for nitpicking, but this should be a reminder to all to explain to Mike what your reasoning is, rather than just to ask a blind question of him.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 04:43 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Q: Is the flagship selection step in withdrawal before combat (302.133) for the defender skipped for the first round following withdrawal before combat, or is another choice done on the first battle round after the withdrawals?

A: The Sequence of Play, step 5-1D, states the flagship chosen in the withdrawal must be the flagship in the first combat round.
________________________________________

I believe the question is do you run the selection process again (step 5-3D), even if you've already run it in 5-1D? The heart of the matter is can you eliminate flagship candidates (for the purpose of minimum battle force) in both steps?
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 04:53 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Me: Again, the questioner didn't clarify what he was looking for. I don't think he was asking if the flagship was re-selected for the battle - the rules clearly state the flagship must be the same - but instead, he was asking if the *process* of selection was followed, even if the actual selection is already known.
________________________________________


Actually, I did clarify what I was looking for, but Mike truncated my question. I can only assume that this means "no dice" on doing the 2nd selection process.

But that still doesn't invalidate the "Eight gets you one" tactic. Just make sure that the two "unselected flagship candidates" don't withdraw before combat. Withdraw the four "little ships."
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Fear,

I noticed one of my December questions wasn't answered. Was this oversight or "sent up the chain?"
________________________________________
Quote:
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?
________________________________________
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 05:05 pm: Edit

Matthew: Your question is pending FERT review.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Oh, sorry 'bout that Matthew, I thought you hadn't clarified, but I didn't bother to look up the original post. My apologies for assuming.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 06:41 pm: Edit

Sorry, the question got slightly mangled in the wording:

Is converting a modular DN to carry SPB modules illegal during the same YEAR that you produce any other CVA with the previously mentioned rules quotes. (NOTE: It's easier to say "when you convert" rather than "when you construct the modules that you intend to place on".)
________________________________________
Quote:
A: The PGR, in the off map area, not the survey area, still takes one turn to get to the off map area. If it started in the off map area it would take an additional turn to get to the off map area.
________________________________________
Is this supposed to be "survey area" or is it a different part of the off-map area it has to go to before going to the survey area?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 09:52 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
The Federation is at limited war. As such, some Federation ships can freely move through the Kzinti-Fed NZ, but the Klingon ships can't enter the NZ without a declaration of war.

Q: Can Klingon units block strategic movement through NZ hexes that they're not allowed to even enter due to their "peace" status with the Federation?

R: No, the ships would have to exert some influence into the NZ hexes and since they are at limited war to the Federation, not full war, they would not. Note that (602.49) does not allow the Federation to capture the NZ hexes, but it does allow them to build bases and have ships in the Federation/Kzinti NZ hexes.
________________________________________


I do not understand why the Klingons could not exert some influence into the NZ. If this happened on a turn where the Alliance is the phasing player, could not the Klingons react into the NZ, thus declaring war on the Federation? I would also note that by 204.22:

"The moving units can never enter a hex containing enemy units or which is adjacent to a hex containing enemy units (not merely ships)."

By definition a PDU is a unit, and could block strategic movement, so it appears that the ability to react (or to even enter the hex in question) to the movement is moot.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Rob,

You are basically asking to able to declare war during the strat move phase. You can't. Take a look at the SOP.

The Klingons can't exert influence on the NZ w/o being at war with the Feds.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 09:05 am: Edit

Joe,

No I'm not. I'm making the point that blocking strat movement does not require the ability to react at all. It appears to me that rule 204.22 supports that position.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 10:45 am: Edit

Rob,

That's exactly what the first part of your post did, "I do not understand why the Klingons could not exert some influence into the NZ. If this happened on a turn where the Alliance is the phasing player, could not the Klingons react into the NZ, thus declaring war on the Federation?"; it was the opposing movement phase instead of start, but the point is the same.


Mike said that that it had to follow strat movement rules. Well in our game, I outnumber you. So, just like the earlier ruling concerning replacement ships "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, a path to your hex, and you have more ships in your hex than he does in his hex, you can use Strategic Movement to bring the future production ships into the hex. If you don’t then you can’t. ", by the same rules, I can perform CEDS repair.

204.22 was amended, and you know that. One PDU no longer blocks strat move.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Joe,

The first half of my statement is simple my not understanding why the Klingons could not exert some influence into the NZ. I understand they are only at Limited War with the Feds. But in any case, I'm accepting that and moving on.

As for 204.22, the new wording is:
________________________________________
Quote:
STRATEGIC MOVEMENT UPDATE
Players have noted a glitch in that ships trying to reach an embattled base or planet are often prevented from doing so by the presence of small enemy units that are clearly no threat to the base. These rules fix this. While the resulting change is favorable to the Alliance, it is not regarded as a serious game balance issue and no counter-balance is needed.
(204.22) The moving units can never enter a hex containing enemy units or which is adjacent to a hex containing enemy units (not merely ships) except as provided below.
(204.221) The Outer Reaction Zone of units with a two-hex Reaction Zone does not block Strategic Movement.
(204.222) Units can leave (i.e., begin their strategic movement in) a hex adjacent to enemy units by Strategic Movement if they meet all other conditions.
(204.223) Units using Strategic Movement can enter a hex containing a Strategic Movement Node even if enemy units are adjacent to that node, so long as:
a- The hex which the moving units entered the node hex from is a hex legal for Strategic Movement and
b- The number of friendly ships in the node hex exceeds the total number of enemy ships in all adjacent hexes.
________________________________________


No where in that updated rule is it stated that a single PDU (or mobile base, or anything else that is incapable of reacting) no longer can block strategic movement. I do not contest that in our current game that the Alliance outnumbers the Coalition in 1902 (a base hex). My point of contention is that according to the strat movement rules, the repair ships in question are not allowed to enter hexes 1903 or 2002 (and obviously hexes 1802 and 2001 as they have Klingons in them), and that by the same rules the ability to react is not necessary to block strategic movement.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 02:58 pm: Edit

"No where in that updated rule is it stated that a single PDU (or mobile base, or anything else that is incapable of reacting) no longer can block strategic movement."

I worded my statement badly. I was meaning that the PDU couldn't if "The number of friendly ships in the node hex exceeds the total number of enemy ships in all adjacent hexes. "

1 PDU isn't likely to do that, is it?


"My point of contention is that according to the strat movement rules, the repair ships in question are not allowed to enter hexes 1903 or 2002 (and obviously hexes 1802 and 2001 as they have Klingons in them), and that by the same rules the ability to react is not necessary to block strategic movement. "

Except that the Klingons cannot exert influence on the NZ hex w/o being at war with the Feds.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Also remember when reading the rules that a unit is not a ship but ship is a unit.
By Peter Bonfanti (Otherbonfanti) on Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Quick legality check: On turn 2 of the General War, Lyrans want to set up a mobile base at 1509, which is out of Lyran supply range. They can, nonetheless, use Strat Movement (costing the Klingons a move, as well) to get to 1509, set up the base normally, and leave during turn 3, without costing anyone homeless/expeditionary EPs.

Thanks.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 01:25 pm: Edit

After searching the archives, I couldn't find an answer to this question:
________________________________________
Quote:
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 08:25 pm: Edit
4. Can defender retreat after attacker retreats after a declined approach battle? (SVC didn't know, and should have received memo at Origins 2002; nothing in Errata, need to check future archives)
- - - - -
SVC: Nick? (BTW, Dave, what is the rule number?)
________________________________________
Has this been answered? The wording of the rule seems to imply that the defender would not have the option of retreating in this case, given that it says the attacker retreats and the defender may pursue (IMO).

(302.23) If not fighting an approach battle, the Attacking Player then has the option of fighting near the base. If the Attacking Player declines this option, he must retreat from the hex using the procedures outlined in Step 7 below. The attacking forces can be pursued under the terms of (302.8), but because of the "head start" (the Attacking Fleet is at a distance offering an "approach battle"), +1 is added to the die roll in (307.2).
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, February 01, 2009 - 08:34 am: Edit

Question regarding build limits:

In the Kzinti OOB under carrier build limits it is stated, in part,

"BCV and BCS limited to one per year (total) and count against carrier limit; BCS also counts against PFT limits."

In CL 26 it was ruled that converting one carrier into another does not count against carrier build limits if there is no change in the number of fighter factors.

Does the 1 per year combined BCV and BCS limit include CV to BCV conversions, i.e. would the following be legal?

spring: build BCS fall: convert CV to BCV

argument 1 is that it is legal since, per CL 26, the CV to BCV conversion does not count against carrier build limits.

Argument 2 would be that the (BCV+BCS) limit is an independent limit, above and beyond other limits, making the above build illegal.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, February 01, 2009 - 01:49 pm: Edit

Jason as there is a limit of one BCH per year and the BCV and BCS are a BCH variants I'm sure that's illegal. I think the limit is on the number of CR-10 hulls.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, February 01, 2009 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Dan:

The CV is also a BCH variant, so doing a CV to BCV (or BCH or BCS) conversion does not create a new BCH. To think about it another way, if some utterly insane Kzinti player wanted to do BCV to BCH conversions, would those be limited to 1 per year?

Cheers,
Jason
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, February 01, 2009 - 03:25 pm: Edit

No, not exactly. The CV does not have a CR of 10.

Edit: And it pre-dates the BCH.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, February 01, 2009 - 11:05 pm: Edit

(R5.59) At least one CVS was upgraded to a BCV, and possibly others were as well.

The above is from Module R5 copyright 1992.

The above supports the arguement for a conversion that doesn't count as a carrier conversion.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 12:57 am: Edit

"The above supports the arguement for a conversion that doesn't count as a carrier conversion."

Not really. All is says is that the conversion(s) took place.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 09:09 am: Edit

One, the the CVS to BCV conversion is a minor conversion of an existing carrier.

Two, the number of fighters doesn't change.

Three, the CVS hull is roughly the same hull as the BCH with internal difference. Somewhere there is an "official" comment to that effect. I had orginally thought it was included with the Kzinti BCH in the R5 section.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 11:04 am: Edit

Turtle,

I'm not saying it counts. What I'm saying is that the R-section thing you posted doesn't support or refute it either way.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 11:35 am: Edit

I'm just saying it provides a good supporting case for a conversion not counting as a carrier conversion. Essentially, your converting one medium carrier to an other of the what amounts to the same hull size both in size class and physical dimensions.

As for the BCS conversion that would be subject to both PF and Carrier conversion limits to the best of my knowledge because of the physical changes involved in the CVS/BCH/BVC/BCS hull type.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 03:52 pm: Edit

>Jason as there is a limit of one BCH per year
>and the BCV and BCS are a BCH variants I'm sure
>that's illegal. I think the limit is on the
>number of CR-10 hulls.

Ummm, no there is no such limit.

There is only one BCH substitution for either a DN or a CC/CA per year for all races.

There is no limit to BCH _conversions_.

BCH can be converted from some races BC (Kzinti, Gorn, Lyrans), CC (ISC) or CLs (Gorns & Lyrans) up to the maximum of their available major conversion capabilities.

The Federation, Hydrans and Klingons have no hulls they can convert to BCH. So they effectively have a one per year BCH limit.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 03:58 pm: Edit

A Question for FEAR:

Is a one per year BCV/BCV group substition added in Advanced Operations instead of or _in_addition_to_ the one BCH per year substitution for either a DN or CC in a race's F&E2K ship build limits?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Sent to me at the request of SVC via email, posting here so I don't forget them...

First Question: Can a race voluntarily destroy an established base (ie: BATS)? The specific scenario is as follows. A large Klingon force has just assaulted the Hydran planet in 0718 (or even the Capital) on turn #5. The force is so large that a majority cannot reach the Federation border using Strategic Movement. They need to stay in place for the moment to prevent a Hydran counterattack. Their plan is to Attack the bypassed BATS at 1116 and/or 1217 on turn #6 then retrograde to bases near the Federation border for the all out assault on turn #7. This will allow more ships to get to the Federation border than would otherwise be allowable utilizing Strategic Movement alone. Now, the Alliance player realizes this fact. In order to reduce the weight of the initial assault, they want to remove those bases during their half of turn #5. Self Destruction? While the Overall Alliance is better off, the Hydrans may feel differently. One can say, how do the Hydrans know the Klingons are going to attack the Federation on turn #7, so why would they destroy a functional BATS. With one player playing the Alliance, they would not hesitate to do this, though in a multiplayer game, they would have to convince the Hydrans that it was for the good of the Alliance. All this could be moot if I have overlooked a rule regarding base Self Destruction? Please advise.

Second Question: As the Klingons dislike/hate the Tholians. Can the Tholian Border Squadron raid the Tholians on turn #1 prior to their Strategic redeployment to the Kzinti border on turn #2. The overall goal is to attrite the Tholian force, not to start a war. From what I recall, destroying a base will push the Tholians in to the Alliance. If the TBS only targets and destroys only ships (ie PCs or othe small ships that can be directed upon) then retreats before any base damage/destruction is done, then does this trigger a Tholian state of war? The underlying goal is to keep the Tholian fleet from progressively over time from getting stronger. If later in the war the Klingons want to attack the Tholians, it will be easier for them if there are fewer Tholian ships which have accumulated over the past 10-20+ turns. Also, if this is allowed, after the TBS redeplo ys and the area is now covered by the East Fleet, can they launch raids into the Holdfast with the same aim of destroying only ships? Finally, would the Tholians simply build an extra ship on their turn to cover the ship loss they incurred (if the economy could allow for the extra build) thus negating the extra effort by the TBS/Eastern Fleet?

Third Question: Rule 533.0 simplifies Orion Pirate usage in a two player game. With regards to utilizing the mercenary option (533.22), for the ships received, does that side pay anything for those ships? There are Lease amounts listed on the Orion SITs. Does the accepting player pay this amount one time for the ship(s) they want, each turn they wish to keep the ship(s), or not at all? Is the aquizition of a Orion mercenary ship costs simply factored into the economy?

Fourth Question: Regarding Armed Priority Transports and Prime Transports, Rules 539.123 and 539.223 states that up to three APTs and/or PRTs can be added to a battle force... So, they can be added, but don't have to be added?

Fifth Question: Regarding Theater Transports. Rule 539.72 third paragraph states two theater transorts working together can move a mobile base. Can two theater transports working together move a FRD?
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Mike: I think this is more than an FYI than a Q&A. I'm quoting here from the thread on the active scenario "The View from Earth". I think it might interest you.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 11:48 am: Edit

Another rules question:

The most recent errata file I have says the following:

(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.

However, I do not get Captain's logs. Is there any ruling about what happens if all bases and PDUs in a system are destroyed, and all planets in that system are devastated?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 12:00 pm: Edit

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:05 am: Edit

Troy: Just want a clarification.
Pertinent rules section is (511.53).
Am about to start the third round of an assualt on the Kzinti capital. At the end of the second round the major planet in Vronket System (there is only one planet there) was devestated (and, of course, has no PDU's left).
The (uncrippled) 'static forces' assigned to it before the first round are still required to remain in Vronket until all the planets in the entire capital region have been similarly dealt with, correct?

ANSWER: There is one piece of errata in the master errata file:

(511.53) If all bases and PDUs in the hex have been destroyed and all planets have been devastated, all "static" ships are transferred to the "mobile" fleet element.

So, under those conditions yes, they all go to the "mobile" element. If only the one planet is devestated, then the static ships stay in that system, or can retreat from the hex.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 12:07 pm: Edit

That answer was a little confusing. But if I am understanding it correctly, he is saying that the erratum can be rewritten as follows:

(511.53) If all bases and PDUs in any system have been destroyed and all planets in that system have been devastated, all “static ships” from that system are transferred to the “mobile” fleet element.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 12:09 pm: Edit

Yes.

That is how I read it also.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 01:17 pm: Edit

I posted the proposed rewrite in the Warbook section.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 01:40 pm: Edit

William Jockusch

Q: Mike: I think this is more than an FYI than a Q&A. I'm quoting here from the thread on the active scenario "The View from Earth". I think it might interest you.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 11:48 am: Edit

Another rules question:

The most recent errata file I have says the following:

(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.

However, I do not get Captain's logs. Is there any ruling about what happens if all bases and PDUs in a system are destroyed, and all planets in that system are devastated?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 12:00 pm: Edit

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:05 am: Edit

Troy: Just want a clarification.
Pertinent rules section is (511.53).
Am about to start the third round of an assualt on the Kzinti capital. At the end of the second round the major planet in Vronket System (there is only one planet there) was devestated (and, of course, has no PDU's left).
The (uncrippled) 'static forces' assigned to it before the first round are still required to remain in Vronket until all the planets in the entire capital region have been similarly dealt with, correct?

ANSWER: There is one piece of errata in the master errata file:

(511.53) If all bases and PDUs in the hex have been destroyed and all planets have been devastated, all "static" ships are transferred to the "mobile" fleet element.

So, under those conditions yes, they all go to the "mobile" element. If only the one planet is devestated, then the static ships stay in that system, or can retreat from the hex.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 12:07 pm: Edit

That answer was a little confusing. But if I am understanding it correctly, he is saying that the erratum can be rewritten as follows:

(511.53) If all bases and PDUs in any system have been destroyed and all planets in that system have been devastated, all “static ships” from that system are transferred to the “mobile” fleet element.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 12:09 pm: Edit

Yes.

That is how I read it also.

A: More of a clarification, Yes, if all bases and PDUs in any system have been destroyed and all plants in that system have been devastated, all “static ships” from that system are transferred to the “mobile” fleet element with one exception. Any units unable to be mobile ships must retreat.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 03:38 pm: Edit

This is my point, those ships are not eligible to be in mobile forces. So, they cannot be in a mobile force. Letting them move to another system and be static forces there would not be within the spirit of the rules for static forces. You, as the defender, must decide where you put your limited forces in the static fleet. They go to the system assigned.

They either must stay at the system they were assigned or retreat once the above conditions are met.

We need to take further discussion to the Warbook tread so it can be properly reviewed for the Warbook.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, February 06, 2009 - 03:46 pm: Edit

Further discussion on slow units leaving a system due to all in place defenses destroyed moved to warbook topic. Please go there for further discussion.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 02:09 pm: Edit

March - April 2009 Archive

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, March 01, 2009 - 05:02 pm: Edit

Sorry - couple of urgent Q&A's

We are only playing with F&E2K.

511.5 - Capital Assaults

5 Independent Squardons of fighters have reacted in from Adjacent bases into a Capital System.

(Question 1) Step 3 (511.53) and Step 6 (511.56) only refer to SHIPS being divided by two (Step 3) - Static/Mobile Forces, and then Defender allocates Mobile SHIPS (Step 6).

(My guess at Answer 1) I believe both 'Ships' words actually refer* to Ships and Independent Squadrons (i.e. Independent Squardrons get split along with Ships in Step 3 and the mobile proportions can be allocated in Step 6).

(*Originally had Ship Equivalents stated here - but that wording would include Fighters on carriers - so revised it to Ships and Independent Squadrons)

(Question 2) Also - If the reacted in Fighters have had their base destroyed (order of combat Base X destroyed, Hex with Fighters from Base X then done) - 205.76 states the fighters find a new base in the reacted into hex - can those fighters claim to the base fighters (and so get included for free), or do they stay as indepedent Fighters?

(My guess at Answer 2)I believe they stay as Independent Fighters, as otherwise, you could have reacted in Fighters, which now fight more effectively if their original bases had been destroyed (i.e. they get included for 'free'). I believe this logical answer is further enhanced if you reacted in fighter are special ones (F14 in this example, but Mega or Stinger X would be relevant in the additional rule packs) - i.e. how can say a F14 squadron work MORE effectively when it's original base is destroyed?

Thanks

Paul
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, March 02, 2009 - 09:24 am: Edit

Paul,

Unless something else has changed that I'm not aware of the answer you are looking for regaurding question 2 is on page 63 of Captain's Log 9.
________________________________________
Quote:
Deathless Fighters
Q903F: Why is it that fighters (and PFs) flying from a base in an adjacent hex (205.7) can continue fighting for the entire combat phase while fighters based within the battle hex are lost immediately when their base/carrier is destroyed?

A: Because the fighters from the adjacent hex are going back to their base to reload every round, while the fighters from within the Battle Hex no longer have that option. While the base in the next hex may have been destroyed during the same combat phase, it is assumed to have happened later in that phase.
________________________________________


It took me 2 days to find that answer after rereading much of the rules from both movement (200) and combat (300) first.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, March 02, 2009 - 10:37 am: Edit

Thomas

From the CL number - that must be pre-2000 - as rule 205.76 modified the timing of the other hex base destruction - to whether it occured before or after the 'current reacted into' hex.

Thanks anyway
By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Question about the Hydran production schedule.

In Y170 there is a PAL which is "activated" but I cant find where any cost of this is, or what it means.

Is it like the Feds and Klingons and you pay 1 EP? Or something else?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Jason,

Look in Advanced Ops. Page 16, Rule number (442.51). Third paragraph. The activations are conversions of Templar early DNs. Cost is 5 EP and the fighters for the activations are free.
By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Ah thanks.

More questions about Hydrans.

If I took 20 fighters out of the FCP for combat, but they werent destroyed, do they go back in the FCP at the end of combat?

Or are they considered regular fighters, and I would need to pay for 20 replacement fighters in the FCP?
By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 02:03 pm: Edit

Again, that's a rule in AO. If you are just using basic F&E2K, those fighters never get replaced. If you are using AO, you can pay to replace them (I can't remember exactly how that works, as I don't have my rules with me).
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Jason

To add to what Kosta said - basically - the FCP in Combined Ops (was Spec Ops) can only receive replacement fighters in the Economic phase - at the cost of 0.2 Eps per fighter - you can replace as many as (or as few) as your want.

If you not playing with CO/Spec Ops - once they have been taken out of the FCP - they can't be replaced.

Neither rule 'sets' allow you to put fighters back into the FCP, after a battle.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 08:03 pm: Edit

The FCP rules are in CO (513.54) . It costs 0.2EP per factor to replace.
By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Okay thanks. I think I will be leaving the FCP empty for a while then, because the Hydrans are starved for cash.

Especially since practically every ship I have got crippled over the Lyran SB...
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 08:02 pm: Edit

I don't have G3 yet, but do you know if the YIS dates of the Hydran Pegasus class of ships are going to be changed either in F+E or SFB? The YIS dates in the most recent Hydran SIT and G2 don't match. And if G3 doesn't change the dates, is the Hydran SIT going to be changed?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 09:47 pm: Edit

Guys, I apologize, I had planned on getting some Q&A done this week, but my boss had surgery on her foot for an tendon issue and will be out ten days. Her boss (CIO) is in Spain with wife visiting her family and my only coworker at my level of training is going to Pelileu (Yeah, the Pacific Ocean, small island) for a research study for her master's degree. This essentially leaves me in charge of a major component of a large Information System business. Also, my wife had a two day convention to go to and that means I am Mr. Mom also... I once had a Top SGT that said the maximum effective range of an excuse is 0 meters, I am not trying to make an excuse, just give you some perspective on the reasons why I didn't get anything done this week so far.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 11:41 pm: Edit

"...my only coworker at my level of training is going to Pelileu (Yeah, the Pacific Ocean, small island) for a research study for her master's degree."

Ooo when does she leave, can I go too? Or maybe you need a GIS intern for a bit to help you Mike.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 12:02 am: Edit

Michael Lui, don;t forget that the 'YIS' in SFB is slightly different than the 'start date' in F&E. SFB's YIS is for an operational squadron (2-4 ships) depending on (expected) rarity/use, while F&E's start date is for the prototype entering service (though an SFB Y2(?) note should have matching dates)...
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 09:49 pm: Edit

Yes, but while I'm not too worried about the ships that may be pushed back (PGC: 173, PGG: 178), the PGV is listed as Y166 in G2 and in J2. And it would be nice to be able to start the game with one, since the game starts in Y168, or at least being able to build them from Turn 3 (Turn 1 for alternate beginning games).
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 10:43 pm: Edit

"Ooo when does she leave, can I go too? Or maybe you need a GIS intern for a bit to help you Mike. " She leaves in the morning, early. I wish I could have gone with her too. I did help her with some preliminary 3-d rendering of her island.

I wish I could have some use of your GIS skills. It would be better than some of the ones I am getting from the local university who are killing me...
By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 01:05 am: Edit

Mike,

Forgive the cheesy question but...

I'm converting a B10 into a B10V. During the same turn I'm installing two SFG modules to get a B10VAA. Is there an EP discount as a two-step conversion?

Cheers!

William
By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 03:15 am: Edit

Chuck Strong or Mike Curtis: I have a question there is a FEDERATION MEMBER RACE IN Prime Directive called the Antareans their homeworld orbits the star Antares is in the Fed Core hex

does this world or system have any status at all in F&E possibly as a minor industrial world or some kind of orbital base facility

Guess how far John has gotten on THE FEDERATION SOURCEBOOK. Thanks!
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 04:25 am: Edit

Gary,

I show Antares to be in F&E hex 2610 as a Minor Planet the same as the Earth's Moon or Vultrax. there are no F&E orbiting bases. There is a Fed BATS in the next hex over (2609).

Antares is 4 hexes from Earth/Vulcan (2908).

Ryan
F&E Staff
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 06:43 am: Edit

Vultrax shows as a "minor industrial world". Will that do for Antares?

Confirming that I do show Antares in the PD Feds text as located in F&E hex 2610.

Ryan, thanks for the assist.
By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Sorry not Antares the red supergiant. modern astronomy calls it beta Antares, it's a G3v yellow dwarf. My oops I typed that at 3am.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 04:45 pm: Edit

I can't find beta Antares in google.

But it's not a listed planet in F&E.
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 05:32 am: Edit

"Beta Antares" is a name that folks in the future SFU sometimes use to distinguish "Antares" (where the Antareans live) from the present "Antares" (the red supergiant star). Ryan, your answer is what I needed.

Jean
By Lee Hanna (Lee) on Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 12:01 am: Edit

Two questions from the Wild Wild West game:
1. Once the Tholian BS transfers to the active front, and the East Fleet takes over that area; the Klingons cannot move into the NZ hexes next to the Tholians and claim them, right? (That is, until T7 or later, when the East Fleet activates.)

2. We're a little confused on Raid procedures. When a raider enters a Raid Target hex with lots of enemy ships, the enemy's Battle Force is limited to one that can participate in {enhanced}Small-Scale Combat, right?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 02:04 pm: Edit

Question for FEAR:

320.42 provides that "only the fixed defenses at the target location are usd in combat against the raiding ship."

Defending Opponent reacts a troop ship onto the planet during a commado raid under 320.4.

Question: Opponent wants to "drop" the G factor from the troop ship to protect the target PDUs. Is this action allowed?

I can find no enabling rule that allows this action. As far as I can tell, only an IGCE could be used (as it is a "fixed" defense), but that would have had to have been established on the prior turn of the defender.

Correct?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 02:13 pm: Edit

Possible enabling rules for the question above:

521.38 Defending Troops: "If there are defending ships with GCWs on board present in the battle hex and qualified under 521.32, then those GCEs may help defend the PDUs on the planet."

521.381: "The defending troop ships providing this support must be in the battle hex but need not be in the battle force (they are in the support echelon), it being assumed that they deposited their troops and left the area before the attackers arrived."

521.32: "To conduct a ground attack, the ground combat ship must have been part of the Battle Force and must have survived the battle and must still have its "g" factor."
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, March 23, 2009 - 09:24 am: Edit

Can I use the Eng Unit (541.0)to add a PDU on a planet with existing PDUs during the production phase then move the Eng Unit to a different location during the op move phase of the turn?

Also, as I read the rules, The PDU (443.421) costs 5 points + 3 points for fighters under the self generation system. The presence of the Eng Unit reduces the cost by 5 points meaning I only have to pay for the fighters. Is the above interpetation correct or does the Eng Unit (541.0) act as a tug for (443.422) and cost 7 points + 3 points for the fighters - 5 points for the presence of the Eng Unit?
By Peter Bonfanti (Otherbonfanti) on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Question for anyone who knows the answer:

(I swear, I spent the last 20 minutes re-reading the rulebooks, both errata files, and past Q&A results, but can't find the answer)

When transferring EPs via 435.0, what's the point of having the tug return to its original capital? For example, Feds send a tug with 10 EPs to the Gorn capital during strategic movement, then have the tug continue to somewhere else in Fed space. The EPs are still delivered, and the tug can still get a new mission next turn.

Specifically, it seems that it should be legal for the Klingons to build a tug, send it to the Lyran capital, pick up 10 EPs, and return to the Klingon capital, all in the same strategic movement phase. This fits the letter of all the applicable laws (one pick-up, one drop-off, one round trip), yet is "backwards" vis-a-vis the stated procedure.

Thanks.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 07:07 pm: Edit

It takes time to load those EPs onto the Tug. Therefore the Klingon Lyran trip takes 2 turns. 1 to get to the Lyran capital and load the EP's. The next turn it returns to the Klingon capital to deliver those EPs.

I know the answer is somewhere. I believe it to be in an earlier Captian's Log. but I can't find where I read that answer.

I see that (435.0) says one turn round trip via strategic movement if delivering EPs. But it doesn't say anything about picking them up first.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 10:28 pm: Edit

"It takes time to load those EPs onto the Tug. Therefore the Klingon Lyran trip takes 2 turns. 1 to get to the Lyran capital and load the EP's. The next turn it returns to the Klingon capital to deliver those EPs.
"

That is not correct.

One pick up, one delivery per turn.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 01:27 am: Edit

Peter Bonfanti:
When transferring EPs via 435.0, what's the point of having the tug return to its original capital?

You have to bring back a delivery receipt!

In my personal opinion I can see it as justified (game balance aside) because of the pilfering risk. The chaos of war makes embezzeling a serious problem. Billions of dollars in cash or untraceble fungible supplies can easily go missing (as recent history shows). A tug carrying a whole year's total wartime output of a major planet... in a readily convertible form... is just too tempting! The chain of custody has to be super rigourous.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 03:26 pm: Edit

Actually, isn't it the case that a tug transferring EPs cannot change it's mission until it goes back to its Capital? I can't remember the rule number but that sounds right.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Yes, 435.22:
"However, a given tug can only make one round trip per turn and must return to the sending capital to change missions."
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 02:36 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
You have to bring back a delivery receipt!

In my personal opinion I can see it as justified (game balance aside) because of the pilfering risk. The chaos of war makes embezzling a serious problem. Billions of dollars in cash or untraceable fungible supplies can easily go missing (as recent history shows). A tug carrying a whole year's total wartime output of a major planet... in a readily convertible form... is just too tempting!
________________________________________
That would be humorous. A 2D6 roll when delivering EPs. If you roll a "2" the delivery never gets there (Orions misdirect the receiving personnel and take delivery themselves, the ship disappears with the delivery (who knows what happened?), enemy sabotage causes the cargo to be jettisoned into deep space while at warp speed, etc).
By Peter Bonfanti (Otherbonfanti) on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 03:53 pm: Edit

Robert P., thanks for the rule number; that explains the problem with my Gorn-Fed example. But what about the Klingon-Lyran one? Say they want to devote a TGB to permanent EP duty: they build it at 1411, send it to 0408 for pick-up, then back to 1411 (making the delivery), and just keep doing this for the whole game. Legal?
By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Peter,

It's handy for the Lyrans to build a MB in the Klingon capital. That way the Lyran tug movement doesn't take up one of the Klingon SM slots. Also, it's easier for Lyrans to extend their supply grid into Kzinti/Fed space with a MB in the Klingon capital.

Cheers!

William
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 08:16 pm: Edit

aka "The Thin Yellow Line"


By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Friday, March 27, 2009 - 12:52 am: Edit

William E. Wood:

It's handy for the Lyrans to build a MB in the Klingon capital. That way the Lyran tug movement doesn't take up one of the Klingon SM slots.

Huh? To deliver ep surely you have to move to your ally's SMN. Delivering to your MB would just let you set up an ep Stockpile on YOUR base for YOUR ships.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Friday, March 27, 2009 - 12:56 am: Edit

Question for FEAR:
Can you deliver ep to an ally by using only your own SMN that is co-located in your ally's capital hex (thus avoiding counting against your ally's Strat Moves)?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, March 27, 2009 - 07:12 am: Edit

Peter Hill:

Q: Can you deliver EP to an ally by using only your own strategic movement network that is co-located in your ally's capital hex (thus avoiding counting against your ally's strategic movement capacity)?

A: As long as your own strategic movement network is connected to your allies capital you can use just your owner strategic movement capacity.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, March 27, 2009 - 09:07 am: Edit

Sorry Mike - any chance you can answer my questions in this post?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, March 01, 2009 - 05:02 pm: Edit

Thanks
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Mike, I asked this question on Feb 2 2009 and I have yet to see a reply:

Is the one per year BCV/BCV group substition added in Advanced Operations instead of or _in_addition_to_ the one BCH per year substitution for either a DN or CC in a race's F&E2K ship build limits?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 01:30 pm: Edit

The OOB's state no more than one BCH or BCH Varient per year.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, March 30, 2009 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Ryan, I'm looking at the online OOB right now. Where exactly does it say no more than one BCH or BCH varient per year? Specifically for the Kzinties, I should clarify.

For the Kzinties, I see that they are listed as being able to substitute a BCH for either a BC or DN, once per year.

I also see in the carrier limits they are allowed only one BCV or BCS per year, total. I don't know if a CV to BCV counts against the carrier limits, but it clearly counts against the BCV limits of one per year.

But it doesn't combine the two - meaning that you could substitute a BCH on the production schedule, *and* convert a CV to a BCV, each in the same year.

Then you wander over to the SIT's, and you see that the Kzinties could convert a BC to a BCH for 4ep. That's a major conversion, limited to only one per turn (unless you have a second starbase and wanted to spend an ungodly 5 ep more!). But nowhere does this state that this conversion is under the BCH limits. So that's two more plain BCH hulls per year. I think the Gorns can do the same thing, and they might actually get some use of out this (for those tasty 12 point cruisers).

I raised this concern back when AO was being developed, and I was told that the likelyhood of the Kzinties having tons of spare battlecruiser lying around made this issue of no real concern. Besides, what are the Kzinti going to do with 3 plain BCH per year? Send them to the front line to be mauled?

But it still seems odd to me that the two biggest economies on the board can each only build one BCH of any type, per year, while the battered Kzinties (and I think several other empires) can build/convert multiple BCH hulls. But hey, that's just me.
By Christopher Scott Evans (Csevans) on Monday, March 30, 2009 - 05:14 pm: Edit

(unless you have a second starbase and wanted to spend an ungodly 5 ep more!)

Alternatively you can build the Major Conversion Facility off map and get the extra conversion without the 5 EP penalty.
By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Thursday, April 02, 2009 - 05:25 am: Edit

In (515.53) it talks about escorts being substituted for regular warships. Then it says these substitutions are counted against the limits on conversions by starbases. Does this mean that the "substitutions" are effectively conversions? Why even bother using the term "substitution" in the first place?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, April 02, 2009 - 05:40 am: Edit

(515.53) "[This rule got badly garbled when we tried to include the CL#25 ruling. The following text is the new complete version which replaces all previous versions.]"

The Errata file completely rewrote this rule.

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/New%20Master%20Errata.pdf
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, April 02, 2009 - 05:45 am: Edit

Jean,

Can you put a permanent link to the Errata File to the top of this folder?
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Thursday, April 02, 2009 - 07:19 am: Edit

If the FEAR or the G.O.D. wish it there, I will. However, I would like to encourage people to use the Master Index (http://www.starfleetgames.com/masterindex.shtml ). Using it, I found two sets of errata: the one you listed and the one to migrate your 1993 set of rules to the 2000 set.

Jean
WebMom
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, April 02, 2009 - 09:41 am: Edit

Question for FEAR regarding reaction movement and raids:

Per 205.1, each ship can make one (and only one) Reaction Movement per opposing "Operational Movement Phase."

Per (314.241) Each raid may be countered by one ship moving by Reaction Movement (within all normal rules thereof) to the Raid Target Hex.

Per the SoP, Raid and Operational movement both occur within the "operations phase" (phase 3), but within distinct sub-phases, step 3A for raids and step 3B for operational movement.

I realize that 205.1 was written before raids were contemplated; however, 314.241 was written with the reaction rules in mind. 314.241 incorporates 205.1 by reference (all normal reaction rules), and 205.1 says you can only react once per "operational movement phase," which is a distinct subset of the "operations phase."

So, here's the question. Can I react twice with the same ship (ignore the extended reaction case), once during the raid sub phase and then again during the operatonal movement sub phase?

My thinking is "yes" because 314 incorporates 205 by reference, and 205 specifically refers to the sub-phase of "operational movement." Thus, you have two sub-phases, each of which is entitled to reaction.

My opponent (Rob Padilla) doesn't think so, and IMHO he has a perfectly valid point - which is that the evolution of the rules didn't consider the details of the extended SoP as it exists today, and the intent of the rule is to allow only one reaction per "operations" phase.

Nevertheless, I think the issue needs clarification from the FEAR. Thanks.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, April 03, 2009 - 10:48 am: Edit

Question about MMGs (321.0):

If I have the following battle force that is Klingon commanded, and has an Admiral:
C8+ADM, 3xD5, D6M, 3xD7C, 3xD7, L-BC+MMG

Can I use the Lyran MMG to add an extra Lyran Troop ship to the battle line?

5-3D of the SoP says: :The presence of an admiral on a flagship in the battle force increases that ship's command rating. The presence of a Marine Major General may allow for one same-race commando ship above command rating (321.31)."

Now the way I read 321.31, this would be legal to do, as that paragrahe says nothing about the MMG having to be of the same race as the race in command. But, when I read 321.41: "No battle force can have more than one active MMG but this can be in addition to an admiral. A battle force can use a MMG and an admiral or an MMG and a command point, but cannot use a MMG, an Admiral AND one or more command points." So that makes me think that the MMG should have to be of the same race as the Admiral (or of the race spending the Command Points).
By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Saturday, April 04, 2009 - 07:21 am: Edit

What is required to maintain control of a captured planet? (508.23) first only talks about ships and then it talks about ships and PDUs. (508.233) talks about retaining control with a ship or PDU or base. This is more than confusing.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 01:45 pm: Edit

This is a general question regarding all the Q&A and changes to rules that the Q&A has effected. When will there be an update to the F&E Master Errata file? The one on the website is dated May 06. With it being 3 years old, there are some new changes and situations that should be easier to find in the Master Errata file, than having to search through a lot links that a the search feature generates. Even using a rule number doesn't always give an answer to a question.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Thomas,
a lot of the major rulings have also been posted in the Q&A Archive File.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 02:46 pm: Edit

I know Mike is working on updating the Master Errata File but he's beenn really busy lately.
By Paul Ross (Photius) on Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Strategic Operations adds Engineers, Diplomats and Theater Transports to the Klingon Home Fleet. Are those units released with the Home Fleet or when they go to war ?

541.11 Specifically states: All races can activate one engineer regiment (for free) on the first turn they are actually "at war" (not just on a wartime economy). Activate seems to indicate that they would be activated and ready for action on turn 1.

540.15 Diplomatic teams function for races at peace... Which could mean that the diplomatic ships would never need to be `released.'

Thanks!

Paul
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 10:30 am: Edit

Sorry Mike - any chance you can answer my questions in this post?

Original post was -

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, March 01, 2009 - 05:02 pm: Edit

I was hoping it would have been answered by the time I got back from my holiday...as my game with William has been on hold since late February!

Thanks
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 01:01 pm: Edit

Deleted by author's request. -- Jean
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, April 20, 2009 - 07:07 am: Edit

Dale asked the following in the ISC War area of Future Products for F&E;
________________________________________
Quote:
As far as I know, the F101 rules are given in one of the Captain's Logs. Unfortunately, my CLs are all still in boxes so I can't tell you about what rules match the counters but I had thought (insert appropriate caveats) that they were considered official even though they are not in an F&E specific expansion. I would please like an answer to this even if it goes against my remembrance. And could we consider that if the F101 rules are not yet official, could they be put into ISC War (which should be the next product)?
________________________________________


I was under the impression that if a rule was indeed published in a Captain's Log then it is an official rule, i.e. (530.0) Heavy Fighters.
________________________________________
Quote:
Rule (530.0) was published in two products: Fighter Operations and Advanced Operations. The two versions of this rule are slightly different, causing some confusion that could be cleared up by a single definitive copy. More importantly, the introduction of the Federation F-101 fighter in Captain’s Log #35 has required minor edits of this rule.
________________________________________


The above would seem to indicate that both the Federation F-101 has been officially published because of (530.0) being published three times in total. With the latest publication of (530.0) being Captain’s Log 36. Also, several scenarios have been published twice, once in Captain's Logs, then republished in new products.

Am I mistaken in these impressions? My apologies if it seems like I'm rambling.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, April 20, 2009 - 07:35 am: Edit

Rules published with thier actual number (530.0) are official rules.

Rules published as (5RO.0) are playtest rules.
By Shayne Demeria (Nighthawk) on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Hi there, I am a new player of F&E.

Checked the archives, and didn't see if this has been asked and answered yet, but it is in regards to CEDS, as well as overstuffing a group.

I'll use a Fed Example.

The Feds have a CVB group, and 2 CVS groups in a Hex.
1. Can I take the escorts from the 1 CVS group, and give them to the other two groups, then feed the fighters forward as an independant squadron ?

2. Next, on the CEDS Phase, can I take the NOW escortless CVS and return to a star base where a NCL and DW are to convert them to escorts ?

3. Can that NCL, and DW have been used in a strike earlier in my own phase ?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 08:23 am: Edit

Mike, I think I have found a discrepancy between the posted Master Errata PDF file and both (655.5) published in Fighter Ops and an archived Q&A. The following quoted errata is not included in the posted Master Errata PDF File.
________________________________________
Quote:
(655.5) The Tholian Border Squadron is released only if both the Klingons and the Romulans are at war with the Federation
________________________________________

Under the use of the No Tholians Option (655.0) the later release of this fleet makes sense in a logical manner because the Tholian Border Squadron would be watching both the Federation and Romulans.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 08:31 am: Edit

Thomas can you post the date that the above was posted. It'll help us find it in the future.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 09:26 am: Edit

Ryan,

Here's the posted information: By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, December 29, 2008 - 12:49 pm:

I had done a keyword search with only
________________________________________
Quote:
(655.5)
________________________________________
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 11:40 am: Edit

When, exactly, in the SoP are PT missions assigned? Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see it.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 11:59 am: Edit

Ted, I didn't see it either in (105.0) Sequence of Play or in (522.0) Prime Teams or in (534.0) Espionge and Sabatoge. The only thing I saw about Prime Team missions was their ability to change ships and missions at the start of each combat round.

I would think that those PT's assigned to (534.0) E&S Missions would have to be assigned at the same point when Tug Missions are assigned.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Ted Couple of places.

2B7: Assign missions: ...assign or remove Prime Teams on defensive missions (537.3).

3A-1A: ... add or remove Prime Teams to raid pool (314.17) & (537.11); ...

5-3E: Players secretly select units to be in Battle Force, including drone bombardment ships, escorts, rescue tugs, FEGs, CVEGs and Battle Groups; admirals/generals can transfer (316.144); pinwheels are formed (322.11). ... Players assign Prime Teams (522.34) and missions. ...
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 12:46 pm: Edit

Ryan, thanks.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 06:45 am: Edit

Nighthawk

I'm not Mike Curtis, but:

1. If you are playing with FO, read page 7, 515.14 and 515.15. Also read F+E 2K, page 20, 302.35 and page 21, 302.563. Short answer: Yes.

However you don't really want to because that will result in a dead CVS. But, feeding the fighters forward as replacements for dead fighters will not get the CVS killed.

2. Short answer: Yes.

But only on this turns CEDS retrograde phase and only if the combat happened in the CVSs hex. If you wait until next turn 308.132C2 will come into play. And if you react into the phasing players hex and leave the CVS behind, without its escorts or fighters, it cannot retrograde because it wasn't part of the combat (not in a combat hex).

3. Short answer: Yes.

All that is required for the future escorts is that they be in the hex with the CV (and base) when the CV gets to convert (replace) its escorts. It doesn't matter what else they have been doing before CEDS happens.


These answers should help if you're in the middle of a game until the FEAR actually gets around to you.
By Paul Ross (Photius) on Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 07:39 am: Edit

Ryan,

Can the Klingon engineers move on turn 1 with the new builds/activations in the General War scenerio?

601.161 ...and anything else that a race "at war" could do.

541.12 All races can activate one engineer regiment (for free) on the first turn they are actually "at war" (not just on a wartime economy.)

The quotations are from the rulebooks, leading me to believe that the Engineers are available to move on the first turn.

Thank you for your time.

Paul
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 07:48 am: Edit

Michael L

Please be careful in answering questions - as your answers may be incorrect.

Specifically, I think the CVS can't use CEDS to replace it's Escorts - as they have not been lost by the CVS group.

However, if the escorted CVB and CVS have crippled/killed ships - they would be eligible for CEDS repairs/replacement.

The unescorted CVS would only be eligible for CEDS repairs if it was crippled (but not replacement of escorts).

To support my answer - if an Carrier was able to 'gift' it's escorts away, it would make it very easy to upgrade Escorts via CEDS (Klingons on turn 4 for example - D6V/CVT's gift there E4A's to FV's or Aux Carriers - and magically then gain AD5's and F5E's).

However - I might be wrong!

Shayne - hopefully this will not slow your game down - but ensuring correct answers are given is one of the reasons why there should be no 'discussions in the Q&A topic' - and only FEAR (and Chuck, Steve P or Steve C) can give valid answers!
By Shayne Demeria (Nighthawk) on Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 09:24 am: Edit

It is not slowing a game down, I am still going over the rules, to get a handle on them, and this had occurred to me, and I just wanted to get a firm answer on this.

Yes, I understand that the CVS in my example would have to be crippled to meet the requirements for CEDS.

F&E 2k, AO, PO, FO, am i missing any ?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 09:32 am: Edit

Nighthawk.

Combined Ops and Strategic Ops.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Sunday, April 26, 2009 - 11:13 pm: Edit

410.31

States that FLEETS out of supply can not use extended reaction (205.3).

I have an out of supply Hydran ship that is in a Kzinti fleet (7 Kzin including scout and the Hydran THR) that has not been able to be supported as homeless yet (but would be in supply at the start of the Coalition turn). The Kzin would like to use extended reaction with its scout and herd the Hydran THR along with the fleet. We assumed that the ship could not use extended reaction, but I figured I would ask the question anyway.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, April 27, 2009 - 08:23 am: Edit

The IC is covered by rule 525.316. Section "A" of this rule says the following:

"The ship can be built on the third turn of building a new shipyard (or any later turn), but (if using the limited "Old Colonies" shipyard) only if no other ships (exception: PG and starbase frigate production) are built on the same turn."

The way this reads to me, I think it's saying that the Hydrans cannot use the OC shipyard to build a ship in the same turn as the IC, but that a minor shipyard would be able to build a ship on the same turn that the IC is built. My reasoning for that is simply because minor shipyards did not exist back when AO was written, so they Hydran simply had no other way to build a ship outside of what 525.316 outlines, but now they do.

So is this correct and building the IC only stops the Hydrans from building a ship at the OC Shipyard, or does it sop production at all shipyards?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, April 27, 2009 - 10:20 am: Edit

"The way this reads to me, I think it's saying that the Hydrans cannot use the OC shipyard to build a ship in the same turn as the IC, but that a minor shipyard would be able to build a ship on the same turn that the IC is built. My reasoning for that is simply because minor shipyards did not exist back when AO was written, so they Hydran simply had no other way to build a ship outside of what 525.316 outlines, but now they do."


Further supporting what you said is that the rule specifically refers to the use of the OC shipyard, as opposed to making a general statement that no other ship could be built. That to me is strong evidence that a minor shipyard could be used in the way that you described.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, April 27, 2009 - 10:55 am: Edit

Not that it's worth much (being more of a Journeyman player) but I concur with Joe. A minor shipyard should be able to produce in addition to the IC.
By John de Michele (Johnad) on Monday, April 27, 2009 - 12:23 pm: Edit

FEAR, Wise Masters of the Game, et al.,

Is it possible to build two different minor shipyards/conversion facilities at the same starbase or major planet? I was looking through the rules in PO, and searching through the archives, but couldn't find anything that would prohibit it.

John.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 02:11 pm: Edit

May - June 2009 Archive

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, May 01, 2009 - 06:09 pm: Edit

FEAR,

The Lyrans get their heavy war destroyer in Spring Y180, long after their second turn of PF deployment.

Can they build HDW-POG in anticipation of getting their HDW? After all, they are seeing the Klingon's deploy HDW-POG for a year prior to their building HDWs.

Also, can they build HDW-POG for their JPG, even though it is impossible to get scout sensors on them?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 12:58 pm: Edit

Fear,

At what point in the sequence of play do you change your Political/Wartime status? You change your Economic status at 1C of a player's own turn. Do you have to wait till that step to change your wartime status or does your wartime status change at the begining of a full turn.

Example - On Turn 4 of Demon of the East Wind can the Federation send the 5th Fleet Reserve to support the Gorn against the Rom on Turn 4 Coalition or do they have to wait till Turn 4 Alliance?
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Question regarding 610 Kovals Lightning (Sector D.)

To make an effective assault on the Fed capitol, is it advantagous (or necessary) to capture and control province 2909?

What about province 2609?
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Monday, May 04, 2009 - 12:40 pm: Edit

I have searched the archives and, although this topic has come up in the past, there has been no definitive answer. So in the chance I can get one I hopefully ask...

In Star Fleet Battles the Klingon CVT SSD seems to have *exactly* the same systems as a Klingon TGA equipped with two carrier pods, while in F&E they are rated as 7-8(5) [CVT] versus 8(5) [TGA + 2VP] respectively.

Is (a) the SFB SSD correct and the F&E factors are just a quirk of carrier conversion from an earlier edition of F&E or (b) are the F&E factors correct and SFB should actually have a different (modified) SSD for the 'true' Klingon CVT?

Hoping to resolve once and for all :-)

Thanks.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, May 04, 2009 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Quirk of carrier conversion.

But probably better to be asked in the F&E Why Topic. http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/21304.html?1240037164
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, May 04, 2009 - 01:31 pm: Edit

Peter,
One Word: Doctrine

By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Monday, May 04, 2009 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Doctrine???

I'm not sure I understand...

Are you saying that the SSD's *are definitely* the same and that the AF is less because the training & attitude of permanent carrier captains (& crew) are different from those on 'casual' carriers?

If so, then if a player chose to escort their [TGA+2VP] single-ship carrier with two E4A's for an extended period of time (ie, for many game turns) would it eventually become a 7-8(5) ship too?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, May 04, 2009 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Peter, in other words, it is one of those things that the designer did that are not necessarily matching from one game to the next. Counter values will not change, so we use the word "Doctrine" to explain why there is a discrepency. If you wish to know more there is a topic to ask those "why does this work this way?" questions of the designer.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, May 04, 2009 - 03:44 pm: Edit

FEAR

Mike - any chance this question can be answered - my game with William has now been on hold for over 2 months?

Original post was -

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, March 01, 2009 - 05:02 pm: Edit

Thanks Sorry - couple of urgent Q&A's

We are only playing with F&E2K.

511.5 - Capital Assaults

5 Independent Squadrons of fighters have reacted in from Adjacent bases into a Capital System.

(Question 1) Step 3 (511.53) and Step 6 (511.56) only refer to SHIPS being divided by two (Step 3) - Static/Mobile Forces, and then Defender allocates Mobile SHIPS (Step 6).

(My guess at Answer 1) I believe both 'Ships' words actually refer* to Ships and Independent Squadrons (i.e. Independent Squardrons get split along with Ships in Step 3 and the mobile proportions can be allocated in Step 6).

(*Originally had Ship Equivalents stated here - but that wording would include Fighters on carriers - so revised it to Ships and Independent Squadrons)

(Question 2) Also - If the reacted in Fighters have had their base destroyed (order of combat Base X destroyed, Hex with Fighters from Base X then done) - 205.76 states the fighters find a new base in the reacted into hex - can those fighters claim to the base fighters (and so get included for free), or do they stay as independent Fighters?

(My guess at Answer 2)I believe they stay as Independent Fighters, as otherwise, you could have reacted in Fighters, which now fight more effectively if their original bases had been destroyed (i.e. they get included for 'free'). I believe this logical answer is further enhanced if you reacted in fighter are special ones (F14 in this example, but Mega or Stinger X would be relevant in the additional rule packs) - i.e. how can say a F14 squadron work MORE effectively when it's original base is destroyed?

Thanks

Paul
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, May 04, 2009 - 04:42 pm: Edit

I am just about done with January's questions. Feburary, March, and April's combined are less than what was in January.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 12:18 am: Edit

Deleted and moved to discussions.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 11:16 am: Edit

Appeal results of PGR:

Trent Telenko:

Q: Concerning the Hydran free production of one PGS hull ship by the Guilds per year: There are no other limits -- besides the F.E.A.R./G.O.D. ruling of only four PGV with free fighter factors -- on PG hull production in the rules set.

Are you adding, via ruling, a new build limit that eliminates Guild new PG hull production from the pool of hulls capable of becoming PGRs?

Thus requiring the Hydrans to use an existing PGS and major conversion to make a PGR?

A: (525.318) is very clear that only PGS, PGC, PFT, PGF, PGG, or PGV (subject to year of availability) are available from the Guilds. To make it into a PGR will require the use of a conversion from a PGS and 3 EP. It does not take a Major Conversion to do so. (542) allows the Hydrans to produce Survey Ships under those rules, not a freebie. The Guilds would not help the Hydran Government explore the area they want for themselves.

Michael Lui:
________________________________________
Quote:
A: (525.318) is very clear that only PGS, PGC, PFT, PGF, PGG, or PGV (subject to year of availability) are available from the Guilds.
________________________________________
This rule was written before the PGR was introduced into the game. Can you please "bump" it up to Chuck or SVC for clarification.

I could see it having a limit of 4 like the PGV or even being placed under the same 4 limit as the PGV. IE: 4 PGVs and 4 PGRs OR 4 PGV/PGR ships free, mix and match your choice.

M Lui:

Before I do, I want clarification from you why the Hydrans should be given, for free, four more survey ships? I don't see a really good reason right now.

Michael Lui:

Like I said, you could put them under the PGV limit. 4 ships of the PGV/PGR class in total. Which would be more valuable to any particular player? 3 PGVs and 1 PGR? 2 and 2?

But I'm mainly just arguing that they weren't around when the original rule and adjustments (4 PGVs) were done and so should be looked at again. Besides which, there is very little difference between the PGS and PGR in normal combat, and you can only send 2 PGRs off-map after the HDW "freebie". And on-map survey exposes them to raids since there isn't that much territory that can't be reached by a fast or X ship from Lyran or Klingon space.....once the Hydrans get back on the map. So having more than 2, maybe 3, only means that they are PGSs with a fancy name (and 1 fighter).

A: Sent to Chuck for review.

FEDS response:

From R11 – the R9.122 rule indicates that one was converted ‘by the Guilds’ so I’m inclined to believe they would permit just one PGR (but not more) to be built via free production. So my ruling is that only one PGR may be produced via free production but the Hydran player must still pay for the survey support lines.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 01:57 pm: Edit

Reply deleted, question was answered in post above.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 07:15 am: Edit

Fed Carrier Production Question 1.
(527.22) states that further NVH production (F-111 carrier) can begin in S180. (532.223) states that the Feds get 1 F-111 carrier per spring turn Y177-Y179 under the HVY fighter limit. The first ship is a discounted NVH. Does 532.223 mean the Y178 and Y179 can’t be NVH’s?

Recommendation:
My read says no additional NVH’s until S180. S178 and S179 can be any F-111 but NVH.

Fed Carrier Production Question 2.
(527.21) says that the Feds receive two discounted NVH’s in S177 and S178. It has a note) (Note: Historically, one of the two NVHs carried F-111s and the other A20s. As the A20 is not represented as a distinct unit in F&E, being subsumed into the overall fighter factor concept, this historical detail is overlooked and both original NVHs are assumed to carry F-111s for simplicity.) Since the A-20 has been now added (532.0) how does this affect the discount and the production limits given in (532.223)? Does 527.21 need to change to reflect the discounted NVH in S178 and the discounted NHA in F178 to match (532.223) which states that the Feds get 1 A-20 carrier per Fall turn Y177-Y179 under the HVY fighter limit. The first ship would be the discounted NHA.

Recommendation:
Update with errata the 527.21 to reflect the addition of the A-20 to the game.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 11:14 am: Edit

General Production. (It would also solve some Fed CV production/history/limits issues)

Can accelerated production be used to bring a ship class into service 1 turn early? Example the NVL YIS is Y173. In F172 could you accelerate production of a NVL?
By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 10:47 pm: Edit

Can a theater transport carry some fraction of a turn's worth of Kestral supplies for the Romulans?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 12:58 pm: Edit

Robert Padilla:
Q: When using CEDS to use a Repair Ship to repair a group (308.131 C), the rule states that the carrier does not need to be at a strategic movement node. However, the rule does not make any mention of adjacent enemy ships to the carrier, like the CEDS replacement (308.132 A3) does.

My question is, do the Repair Ships used for CEDS ignore units adjacent to the carrier for determining if the Repair Ships can reach their target or not?
*****
A: Rules (308.131), (422), and as long as you are in supply per (410.23) do not mention being adjacent to enemy units as being a limit to this repair function. So, since it is not specifically disallowed, it is allowed.
*****
Michael Lui:

Q: Since the Hydran PGR starts in the off-map area, can it be moved to the survey ship record form immediately or does it have to wait an extra turn. Please note that the Guild Shipyard (not the Old Colonies SY) is quite likely hidden in the Survey Area itself since the Hydran government/military doesn't even know where it is.

*****
A: You still need to wait one turn to get to the survey area. The off map area is just more civilized area that is not on the map. The survey area is the far reaches of your space and it still takes time and commitment to be there.

Note: I presume any survey ship converted/produced in the OC SY or at a replacement Capital SY would have to wait the extra turn as they are considerably closer and are at known/well-surveyed locations.
*****
Matthew G. Smith:
The Federation is at limited war. As such, some Federation ships can freely move through the Kzinti-Fed NZ, but the Klingon ships can't enter the NZ without a declaration of war.

Q: Can Klingon units block Strat-move through NZ hexes that they're not allowed to even enter due to their "peace" status with the Federation?
*****
A: Blocking strategic movement into a hex shows some influence of your ships on the adjacent hex per (204). Such influence is not allowed per (503.6). So, No, the Klingon units cannot block strategic movement through the Kzinti-Federation neutral zones before war if fully declared.
*****
Ryan Opel:
I don't think this ruling was ever published in a CapLog.
________________________________________
Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:51 pm: Edit
===================================

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 02:54 am: Edit


Nick:

Recommend a note in the next CL Rules & Rulings article that we note the missing Hydran GRV is added to the Home Fleet.

ANSWER: noted.

===================================
*****
A: Wasn’t it added in Fighter Operations?
*****
Trent Telenko:

Q: Concerning the Hydran free production of one PGS hull ship by the Guilds per year: There are no other limits -- besides the F.E.A.R./G.O.D. ruling of only four PGV with free fighter factors -- on PG hull production in the rules set.

Are you adding, via ruling, a new build limit that eliminates Guild new PG hull production from the pool of hulls capable of becoming PGRs?

Thus requiring the Hydrans to use an existing PGS and major conversion to make a PGR?

*****
A: (525.318) is very clear that only PGS, PGC, PFT, PGF, PGG, or PGV (subject to year of availability) are available from the Guilds. To make it into a PGR will require the use of a conversion from a PGS and 3 EP. It does not take a Major Conversion to do so. (542) allows the Hydrans to produce Survey Ships under those rules, not a freebie. The Guilds would not help the Hydran Government explore the area they want for themselves.
*****
Michael Lui:
________________________________________
Quote:
A: (525.318) is very clear that only PGS, PGC, PFT, PGF, PGG, or PGV (subject to year of availability) are available from the Guilds.
________________________________________
This rule was written before the PGR was introduced into the game. Can you please "bump" it up to Chuck or SVC for clarification.

I could see it having a limit of 4 like the PGV or even being placed under the same 4 limit as the PGV. IE: 4 PGVs and 4 PGRs OR 4 PGV/PGR ships free, mix and match your choice.
*****
M Lui:

Before I do, I want clarification from you why the Hydrans should be given, for free, four more survey ships? I don't see a really good reason right now.
*****
Michael Lui:
Like I said, you could put them under the PGV limit. 4 ships of the PGV/PGR class in total. Which would be more valuable to any particular player? 3 PGVs and 1 PGR? 2 and 2?

But I'm mainly just arguing that they weren't around when the original rule and adjustments (4 PGVs) were done and so should be looked at again. Besides which, there is very little difference between the PGS and PGR in normal combat, and you can only send 2 PGRs off-map after the HDW "freebie". And on-map survey exposes them to raids since there isn't that much territory that can't be reached by a fast or X ship from Lyran or Klingon space.....once the Hydrans get back on the map. So having more than 2, maybe 3, only means that they are PGSs with a fancy name (and 1 fighter).
*****
A: Sent to Chuck for review.
*****
Peter Hill:

Q: Does the Klingon East Fleet's deployment area still overlap that of the TBS (I've searched the forum and haven't found anything that rescinds this)? If so then does an overlapping deployment area cause any problems?

*****
A: (601.2) provides for the transfer of command from the Tholian Border Squadron to the Eastern Fleet when the Tholian Border Squadron is released to move elsewhere in the Klingon Empire. There is no overlap. The starbases at 1716 and 2316 are available to the East Fleet for repairs and conversions (rotate the ships to be converted as part of the six ships an unreleased fleet can move in a turn).
*****
I'm talking pre-TBS release.

Eastern Fleet: Set up within 2 hexes of Federation Neutral Zone (not 1707-1708). This definition includes hexes 2517, 2518 and 2519 (since 2617 is considered a Federation NZ hex).

TBS: Set up in 2517, 2518 and/or 2519; two ships in 2318 (can rotate between bases and planet while inactive). This also includes hexes 2517, 2518, 2519.

Ie, the only TBS hex not overlapping the Eastern Fleet area seems to be 2318.

*****
Ruling: I couldn't find anything covering this, so here is a ruling on it: The East Fleet deployment zone is exclusive of the Tholian Border Squadron deployment zone until the Tholian Border Squadron is released and its deployment zone is turned over to the East Fleet per (601.2)
*****
Peter Hill:
Q1: Are "chained substitutions" allowed?

For example, the Hydrans allow the following substitutions:
o Can substitute LN for HR. (DD for CW)
o Can substitute UH for LN. (CV for DD)

Does this mean that I can substitute a UH for an HR in the production schedule? (CV for CW)

I have been assuming this is the case (otherwise how can I ever substitute a UH?) but technically the rules state that only the substitutions actually listed in the OOB are allowed!

*****
A1: Yes, this is called a substitution for a substitution or in slang “subbing for a sub”. You can do this with other races, i.e. Substituting 2xFF for a CL and then substituting one of them into a EFF and the other into a SF.
*****

Q2: Rule (431.8) specifically states "You cannot substitute a ship, then convert it during construction into the originally scheduled type."

This is presumably to prevent odd "discounts" such as the Lyrans building an extra cheap DN (Ie, DN -subst-> CA -convert-> DN costing 14 ep instead of 16 ep).

A recent build I did doesn't violate the letter of this rule at all but does seem to violate the spirit. Specifically:

Hydrans can build a UH by:
o HR -subst-> LN -subst-> UH (cost 24 ep).
o HR -subst-> LN -conv-> UH (cost 22 ep).

Should this be allowed?

*****
A2: This cost differential is from Hydrans just being plain weird and (Insert Tony T’s line here). The LN base hull (4 EPs) is discounted like a War Destroyer to keep its cost in line with the KN when you add the fighters. This is just part of what the LN is. (431.8) does not apply unless you started with a UH and subbed a LN then did a LN>UH conversion. So, yes you can do a HR substitution into a LN then convert that LN into a UH for 22 EP.
*****
Thomas Mathews:

Q1: (424.33) Does the failure to roll a 1 when a ship is destroyed in circumstances that would allow it to produce EPs under (439.0) Salvage mean that the ship in question is lost without producing salvage at all, or does it produce EPs under (439.0)?

*****
A1: The procedure is to check for possible entry into the Repair Depot including checking for salvage availability (424.33) if desired for the two year trip through the space junkyard, then, those that failed getting into the Depot will then check if they are eligible for salvage and then added to the economy at the end of the combat round per (439.0)
*****
Q2: (433.0) Can a variant (i.e. MEC) be converted into a different variant (i.e. MDC) at the cost of the conversion of a regular production ship (i.e. CM) or is the ship required to be converted twice, once back to the original configuration, then a second time to the new configuration subject to availability, conversion limits and racial limits?
*****
A2: (433.24) …Any variant (except a mauler) can be converted into any other variant that the base hull can be converted into. Pay a 1-point surcharge to "unconvert" the original variant and then the normal conversion cost for the desired variant. If the original conversion was three points, the extra surcharge point (total cost 4) does not make this a major conversion using the one allowed major conversion. The 1EP cost is paid per ship, so a Romulan FE group would cost three points to convert into three WEs.
*****
Q3: Under (308.2) during (307.0) Pursuit, do both sides allocate remaining damage in such a way as to minimize the number of plus or minus points or is there no limit?

*****
A3: You need to resolve your damage down to less than the smallest defense factor divided by 2. If you had a crippled F5 in your battle force as your smallest defense factor you need to have no more than 1 minus point left at the end of the battle. If you have an un-crippled F5 in your battle force as your smallest defense factor you need to have no more than 2 minus points left at the end of the battle.
*****
Robert Padilla

Q: 323.52 states: "Salvage and Depot Level Repair rolls are handled normally using those rule systems."

The Salvage rules (439.0) state the following:
439.16: "Ships destroyed after single-combat [(310.0 or 504.4)] count as salvage for the winning ship if it would otherwise qualify (in supply, not adopted or expedition, etc.)."

Since the second sentence of ESSC (323.0) states that "This supercedes (310.0) and (318.7) which are canceled and replaced by this rule effective immediately.", does that mean that in the Salvage rules, rule number 310.0 should be replaced by 323.0? And also, if the ESSC is not single combat, who does the Salvage for a destroyed ship go to, the winner or the owner?
*****
A: Since there is no longer a (310.0) then rule (439.16) only applies to rule (504.4).
*****
Peter Hill:
Q1: In Special Operations (517.13) it states that Lyran K-pods and Kligon pods may be mutually "borrowed". But how does this borrowing occur? Pods can only be dispatched to ships in their supply grid and normally Lyran/Hydran ships can not access the other's grid. Does this mean that only Homeless ships & Expeditionary fleets can "borrow" these pods?
*****
A1: According to (517.22) the tug draws the pod from a “pool” of pods in the supply grid of the empire the pod belongs to. So, a Lyran tug would have to be at a supply point within the Klingon supply grid to draw a Klingon pod and a Klingon tug would have to be at a supply point within the Lyran supply grid to draw a Lyran K pod.
*****

Q2: If a Lyran is 'borrowing' a Klingon VP (rather than its own Lyran built ones) who supplies the replacement fighters? Ie, do they need to be drawn from Klingon supply lines as there is no actual conversion to Lyran technology?
*****
R2: The fighters would be supplied by the empire that owns the pod.
*****

Q3: Carrier War lists the Klingons as starting with 4 carrier pods but does not specify if they are VP2 or VP3. Which are they?
*****
A3: According to the current SIT for the Klingons dated 18 JUL 08, the VP3 pod has a YIS of Y172 while the VP2 has a YIS of Y168. So, the GW at start pods are VP2.
*****
Joe Stevenson:
"A: The use of one Repair ship to do a CEDS repair follows the repair ship rules in (308.131C) using the Repair ship restrictions. "

I'm not sure that actually removes the ambiguity.
*****
What is still ambiguous? Please be specific. Thank you.
*****
Kevin Howard:
*****
Your appeal on the PDU command rating has been pushed up the ladder.
Your appeal on the Flagship selection process and withdrawal before combat has been pushed up the ladder.
Everyone, sorry for nitpicking, but this should be a reminder to all to explain to Mike what your reasoning is, rather than just to ask a blind question of him.
Kevin has provided an example of how to explain what your question is and what you believe the process is. Bravo, Kevin!
*****
Michael Lui:
Q1: Is converting a modular DN to carry SPB modules illegal during the same YEAR that you produce any other CVA with the previously mentioned rules quotes. (NOTE: It's easier to say "when you convert" rather than "when you construct the modules that you intend to place on".)
*****
A1: Per FEDS:
A. EXISTING module(s) placed on an EXISTING modular DN (M-DN) would NOT count in this limitation.

B. EXISTING module(s) placed on an NEW M-DN would count toward the one heavy carrier per year limit.

C. NEW module(s) placed on an EXISTING M-DN would count toward the one heavy carrier per year limit.

D. NEW module(s) placed on an NEW M-DN would count toward the one heavy carrier per year limit.
*****
Q2: Is this supposed to be "survey area" or is it a different part of the off-map area it has to go to before going to the survey area?
________________________________________
Quote:
A: The PGR, in the off map area, not the survey area, still takes one turn to get to the off map area. If it started in the off map area it would take an additional turn to get to the off map area.
________________________________________

*****
A2: My mistake, the last “off map area” should be “survey area”.
*****

Peter Bonfanti:
Q: On turn 2 of the General War, Lyrans want to set up a mobile base at 1509, which is out of Lyran supply range. They can, nonetheless, use Strategic Movement (costing the Klingons a move, as well) to get to 1509, set up the base normally, and leave during turn 3, without costing anyone homeless/expeditionary EPs.

*****
A: (510) provides all the information for Mobile Bases. It states in (510.11) that a mobile base does not provide supplies and are out of supply if not connected to a Supply Grid. Anyone can setup a MB out of supply, but it has no effectiveness until connected to a supply grid. So, in this example the Lyrans can setup the Mobile Base here, but it will do nothing for them until it is connected to the Lyran supply grid.
*****
Derek Meserve:
Q: Has this been answered? The wording of the rule seems to imply that the defender would not have the option of retreating in this case, given that it says the attacker retreats and the defender may pursue (IMO).
________________________________________
Quote:
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 08:25 pm: Edit
4. Can defender retreat after attacker retreats after a declined approach battle? (SVC didn't know, and should have received memo at Origins 2002; nothing in Errata, need to check future archives)
- - - - -
SVC: Nick? (BTW, Dave, what is the rule number?)
________________________________________

*****
A: Phase 5-Step 7 of the SOP is Retreat. It is the full retreat phase except that the Attacker must retreat according to (302.23). The defender still has the option in both steps 5-7A1 and 5-7A3 to retreat. Or he can pursue per (302.23)
*****
Jason Schaff:
Q: In the Kzinti OOB under carrier build limits it is stated, in part,

"BCV and BCS limited to one per year (total) and count against carrier limit; BCS also counts against PFT limits."

In CL 26 it was ruled that converting one carrier into another does not count against carrier build limits if there is no change in the number of fighter factors.

Does the 1 per year combined BCV and BCS limit include CV to BCV conversions, i.e. would the following be legal?

spring: build BCS fall: convert CV to BCV

argument 1 is that it is legal since, per CL 26, the CV to BCV conversion does not count against carrier build limits.

Argument 2 would be that the (BCV+BCS) limit is an independent limit, above and beyond other limits, making the above build illegal.
*****
A: The specific limit, in this case in (705.0), overrules the general. The BCV and BCS are specific ship types that can only be produced by any means to one per year total. They also count against the carrier limit which also points out the more limited production limits.
*****
Trent Telenko:

Q: Is a one per year BCV/BCV group substitution added in Advanced Operations instead of or in addition to the one BCH per year substitution for either a DN or CC in a race's F&E2K ship build limits?
*****
R: It is an either/or situation. You can substitute on BCH hull per year for either a DN or CC. This includes the BCV.
*****
Questions sent to SVC to be answered here:

Q1: Can a race voluntarily destroy an established base (ie: BATS)? The specific scenario is as follows. A large Klingon force has just assaulted the Hydran planet in 0718 (or even the Capital) on turn #5. The force is so large that a majority cannot reach the Federation border using Strategic Movement. They need to stay in place for the moment to prevent a Hydran counterattack. Their plan is to Attack the bypassed BATS at 1116 and/or 1217 on turn #6 then retrograde to bases near the Federation border for the all out assault on turn #7. This will allow more ships to get to the Federation border than would otherwise be allowable utilizing Strategic Movement alone. Now, the Alliance player realizes this fact. In order to reduce the weight of the initial assault, they want to remove those bases during their half of turn #5. Self Destruction? While the Overall Alliance is better off, the Hydrans may feel differently. One can say, how do the Hydrans know the Klingons are going to attack the Federation on turn #7, so why would they destroy a functional BATS. With one player playing the Alliance, they would not hesitate to do this, though in a multiplayer game, they would have to convince the Hydrans that it was for the good of the Alliance. All this could be moot if I have overlooked a rule regarding base Self Destruction? Please advise.
*****
A1: Sent to FERTS for review.
*****

Q2: As the Klingons dislike/hate the Tholians. Can the Tholian Border Squadron raid the Tholians on turn #1 prior to their Strategic redeployment to the Kzinti border on turn #2. The overall goal is to attrite the Tholian force, not to start a war. From what I recall, destroying a base will push the Tholians in to the Alliance. If the TBS only targets and destroys only ships (i.e. PCs or other small ships that can be directed upon) then retreats before any base damage/destruction is done, then does this trigger a Tholian state of war? The underlying goal is to keep the Tholian fleet from progressively over time from getting stronger. If later in the war the Klingons want to attack the Tholians, it will be easier for them if there are fewer Tholian ships which have accumulated over the past 10-20+ turns. Also, if this is allowed, after the TBS redeploys and the area is now covered by the East Fleet, can they launch raids into the Holdfast with the same aim of destroying only ships? Finally, would the Tholians simply build an extra ship on their turn to cover the ship loss they incurred (if the economy could allow for the extra build) thus negating the extra effort by the TBS/Eastern Fleet?
*****
A2: The Klingons cannot enter Tholian territory itself until Turn 7 per (602.11) as this is the earliest that the Klingons are allowed in Tholian space.
*****

Q3: Rule 533.0 simplifies Orion Pirate usage in a two player game. With regards to utilizing the mercenary option (533.22), for the ships received, does that side pay anything for those ships? There are Lease amounts listed on the Orion SITs. Does the accepting player pay this amount one time for the ship(s) they want, each turn they wish to keep the ship(s), or not at all? Is the acquisition of a Orion mercenary ship costs simply factored into the economy?

*****
R3: It is not clear as to what the correct answer should be. Since the Orions would never do something for nothing, a freebie would not be in order. Pay the lease value each turn during the economic phase in production.
*****
Q4: Regarding Armed Priority Transports and Prime Transports, Rules 539.123 and 539.223 states that up to three APTs and/or PRTs can be added to a battle force... So, they can be added, but don't have to be added?
*****
A4: Yes, you can add them if they are available, but are not required to do so. (539.123). This is a clarification of the existing rule.
*****

Q5: Regarding Theater Transports. Rule 539.72 third paragraph states two theater transports working together can move a mobile base. Can two theater transports working together move a FRD?
*****
A5: (539.72) very specifically lists what a Theater Transport can carry. A FRD is not listed, so, no, they may not.
*****
Paul Howard:
Sorry - couple of urgent Q&A's

We are only playing with F&E2K.

511.5 - Capital Assaults

5 Independent Squadrons of fighters have reacted in from Adjacent bases into a Capital System.

Q1: Step 3 (511.53) and Step 6 (511.56) only refer to SHIPS being divided by two (Step 3) - Static/Mobile Forces, and then Defender allocates Mobile SHIPS (Step 6).

*****
R1: Yes, the independent squadrons need to be treated as individual 6 point ships for this step.
*****
Q2: If the reacted in Fighters have had their base destroyed (order of combat Base X destroyed, Hex with Fighters from Base X then done) - 205.76 states the fighters find a new base in the reacted into hex - can those fighters claim to the base fighters (and so get included for free), or do they stay as independent Fighters?
*****
A2: Per (205.76) they fight the first round as independent squadrons, and then they are homeless and must find a home. If it is a base/ship in which fighting is currently being resolved in then they are eligible to become new fighters for any base/ship that has space for them in that fighting. They may also go to another base/ship in the hex that has empty space in the fighter hangers. They are split up by factors, not by type.
*****
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Mike,

"Q3: Under (308.2) during (307.0) Pursuit, do both sides allocate remaining damage in such a way as to minimize the number of plus or minus points or is there no limit?

*****
A3: You need to resolve your damage down to less than the smallest defense factor divided by 2. If you had a crippled F5 in your battle force as your smallest defense factor you need to have no more than 1 minus point left at the end of the battle. If you have an un-crippled F5 in your battle force as your smallest defense factor you need to have no more than 2 minus points left at the end of the battle."


Did you mean plus points for there? (Plus points being unresolved damage, while minus points is overscored damage, thus becoming minus points for the next round, which in this case would never occur as the battle was now over).

I found no such limitation on minus points being scored in a pursuit battle, whereas the limits of plus points is the same as any other battleround.

Therefore, if I have 2 points remaining to resolve, and I had a crippled F5, I would be required to resolve the damage somehow. But I would not be *required* to resolve it to the closest thing to 'zero' - I would not be required to kill the crippled F5. Instead, if I wanted to, I could cripple another healthy ship if I still had one in the retreating line, even if the only thing I had was a B10. I'd overscore by 18, and those 'minus points' would be wasted.

(Of course, if the only thing I had was a huge ship, I might just let the dang F5 die and be done with it, but it's still my choice.)

*~*

Is my interpretation incorrect, or did you just mean to write 'plus points' instead of 'minus points' when you wrote your example?

Thanks in advance.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 04:39 pm: Edit

Kevin Howard:
Yes, you could cripple another F5 in the battleforce instead of killing an already crippled F5, thus inflicting more damage (3 in this case) than you would have taken.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Mike,

(452.17) States that you can make a single point conversion per turn. I.E. Kziti FFK to FKE. Under (425.2) Ships can be converted during repair at a savings. Could a Sector Base perform a CDR of a crippled Kzinti BC to a CVL or a CC? The normal conversion would be 2 pts. However as the ship is being repaired it becomes 1 pt.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, May 14, 2009 - 07:39 pm: Edit

Well it's 15 May here in Baghdad so I'd like to say.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY FEAR
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Friday, May 15, 2009 - 10:17 am: Edit

F.E.A.R.

Sorry to be a PITA, but I have to appeal this on two points; one of logic and one of "history".

The logical point:
The CVS>BCV conversion is a trivial one that makes almost no changes to the ship. In F&E the only change is an increase in CR. In SFB, you add a couple FLAG boxes and change some HULL to APR. That's it. (Note especially that they share the same base hull.) Many more extensive carrier conversions, including those that do change base hull type (CWV>NCV) are under no limits of any sort whatsoever. The situation just doesn't seem logical. (Yeah, I know...Doctrine! )

The Historical Point:
The CL26 history of the Kzinti strike carriers has a total of 6 BCS and 4 BCV hulls produced or converted Y180-Y185. The only way to make any possible sense out of this is if the CV>BCV conversion does not count against limits. And yes, I am remembering the Gorn Carrier Fiasco: I find it hard to believe that anything on a BCH hull would be subsumed into unrepresented rear area garrison and convoy escort duty not represented in the F&E system, at least until well into the X-ship era.

Thanks,
Jason

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jason Schaff:
Q: In the Kzinti OOB under carrier build limits it is stated, in part,

"BCV and BCS limited to one per year (total) and count against carrier limit; BCS also counts against PFT limits."

In CL 26 it was ruled that converting one carrier into another does not count against carrier build limits if there is no change in the number of fighter factors.

Does the 1 per year combined BCV and BCS limit include CV to BCV conversions, i.e. would the following be legal?

spring: build BCS fall: convert CV to BCV

argument 1 is that it is legal since, per CL 26, the CV to BCV conversion does not count against carrier build limits.

Argument 2 would be that the (BCV+BCS) limit is an independent limit, above and beyond other limits, making the above build illegal.
*****
A: The specific limit, in this case in (705.0), overrules the general. The BCV and BCS are specific ship types that can only be produced by any means to one per year total. They also count against the carrier limit which also points out the more limited production limits.
=========================
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, May 15, 2009 - 10:40 am: Edit

"Sorry to be a PITA,"

But you can then scoop up hummus!


"The CVS>BCV "

I'd argue that it should be limited, because the BC conversion rules are there to keep all empires from becoming the Lyrans/Gorns when it comes to 10-pt command ships.


"The only way to make any possible sense out of this is if the CV>BCV conversion does not count against limits. And yes, I am remembering the Gorn Carrier Fiasco: "

Which is why I try to remind everyone of SVC's comments on that. SFB articles are written for flavor. IMO, we shouldn't be altering F&E rules because of an article written primarily to sound cool. If such class history articles start consulting F&E rules to see what's possible FIRST, THEN would be the time to be more locked in by them.

We're jumping through hoops to accomodate fiction that doesn't follow F&E rules, then trying to jerrymander the rules to fit. A mistake IMO.

I think the ruling was correct.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, May 15, 2009 - 02:11 pm: Edit

>I'd argue that it should be limited, because
>the BC conversion rules are there to keep all
>empires from becoming the Lyrans/Gorns when it
>comes to 10-pt command ships.

Joe,

That is untrue, both the Gorns and Kzinti can turn their BC/CC's into BCH (12 and 10 COMPOT respectively) via conversions _in_addition_to the one per year BCH substitution.

The reason those races don't "Go Lyran" is that when they get the conversion (Y180, turn 24,) it is four turns from their X-Cruiser deployment dates.

In the Kzinti case, the CC/BC's are usually dead or converted to carriers of one type or another by then -- usually BCH sized CV's.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, May 15, 2009 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Trent,

"The reason those races don't "Go Lyran" is that when they get the conversion (Y180, turn 24,) it is four turns from their X-Cruiser deployment dates. "

Do any of the other 5 empires have the ABILTY to churn out CR10 units the way the Lyrans/Gorns can? CR10 carriers? No.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, May 15, 2009 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Jason Langdon:
Q1: In Y170 there is a PAL which is "activated" but I can’t find where any cost of this is, or what it means.
*****
A1: (442.51) states the activations are conversions of Templar early DNs. The cost is 5 EP and the fighters are free.
*****
Q2: If I took 20 fighters out of the FCP for combat, but they weren’t destroyed, do they go back in the FCP at the end of combat?

Or are they considered regular fighters, and I would need to pay for 20 replacement fighters in the FCP?
*****
A2: The Hydran FCP is a very large FCR. It stores spare Hydran fighters in part form until they are needed. Once they are assembled they can’t go back to the FCP. You need hanger space on regular Hydran ships for the new fighters to go before you unpack and assemble them. (513.54) allows you to “reload” the FCP for 0.2 EP per factor.
*****
William Wood:
Q1: I'm converting a B10 into a B10V. During the same turn I'm installing two SFG modules to get a B10VAA. Is there an EP discount as a two-step conversion?

*****
A1: (312.321) allows the B10 to receive two SFG kits in one single minor conversion, but a conversion to a carrier is a separate conversion that would take place on another turn. Also, be aware that the B10VAA cannot use carrier escorts when using the SFG. This is a ruling by a previous FEAR in 2007 at Origins when the current FEAR tried to use one.
*****
Lee Hanna:
Q1. Once the Tholian Border Squadron transfers to the active front, and the East Fleet takes over that area; the Klingons cannot move into the NZ hexes next to the Tholians and claim them, right? (That is, until T7 or later, when the East Fleet activates.)

*****
A1: The Tholian NZ hexes cannot be occupied until the Klingons are at war with the Federation.
*****
Q2. We're a little confused on Raid procedures. When a raider enters a Raid Target hex with lots of enemy ships, the enemy's Battle Force is limited to one that can participate in ESSC, right?

*****
A2: (314.21) provides for one ship or equivalent to react to a raid.
*****
Ted Fay:

320.42 provides that "only the fixed defenses at the target location are used in combat against the raiding ship."

Defending Opponent reacts a troop ship onto the planet during a commando raid under 320.4.

I can find no enabling rule that allows this action. As far as I can tell, only an IGCE could be used (as it is a "fixed" defense), but that would have had to have been established on the prior turn of the defender.

Question: Opponent wants to "drop" the G factor from the troop ship to protect the target PDUs. Is this action allowed?

*****
A: (320.42) states clearly that only the fixed defenses at the target location are used in combat against the raiding ship which is a commando ship. So, no, the reacting troop ship cannot place G factors on the planet to assist. References to (521.xx) are for ground attacks on PDUs, not raids.
*****

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thomas Mathews:
Can I use the Eng Unit (541.0) to add a PDU on a planet with existing PDUs during the production phase then move the Eng Unit to a different location during the op move phase of the turn?

Also, as I read the rules, The PDU (443.421) costs 5 points + 3 points for fighters under the self generation system. The presence of the Eng Unit reduces the cost by 5 points meaning I only have to pay for the fighters. Is the above interpretation correct or does the Eng Unit (541.0) act as a tug for (443.422) and cost 7 points + 3 points for the fighters - 5 points for the presence of the Eng Unit?
*****
A: (541.31) states the Engineer regiments can perform any construction function that a tug can do but the cost is reduced by 5 EPs. So the PDU cost is the one for the tug to deliver and would be 2 (7-5) + 3 for 5 EPs and the Engineer regiment would have to remain in the hex for the whole turn, just like a tug.
*****
Peter Bonfanti:

Q: When transferring EPs via 435.0, what's the point of having the tug return to its original capital? For example, Feds send a tug with 10 EPs to the Gorn capital during strategic movement, then have the tug continue to somewhere else in Fed space. The EPs are still delivered, and the tug can still get a new mission next turn.

Specifically, it seems that it should be legal for the Klingons to build a tug, send it to the Lyran capital, pick up 10 EPs, and return to the Klingon capital, all in the same strategic movement phase. This fits the letter of all the applicable laws (one pick-up, one drop-off, one round trip), yet is "backwards" vis-a-vis the stated procedure.

*****
A: (435.2) specifically states the tug must move from one capital to the other and back again to complete the transaction.
*****
Peter Hill:

Q: Can you deliver EP to an ally by using only your own strategic movement network that is co-located in your ally's capital hex (thus avoiding counting against your ally's strategic movement capacity)?

*****
A: As long as your own strategic movement network is connected to your allies capital you can use just your owner strategic movement capacity.
*****
Ted Fay:
Q: Per 205.1, each ship can make one (and only one) Reaction Movement per opposing "Operational Movement Phase."

Per (314.241) Each raid may be countered by one ship moving by Reaction Movement (within all normal rules thereof) to the Raid Target Hex.

Per the SoP, Raid and Operational movement both occur within the "operations phase" (phase 3), but within distinct sub-phases, step 3A for raids and step 3B for operational movement.

I realize that 205.1 was written before raids were contemplated; however, 314.241 was written with the reaction rules in mind. 314.241 incorporates 205.1 by reference (all normal reaction rules), and 205.1 says you can only react once per "operational movement phase," which is a distinct subset of the "operations phase."

So, here's the question. Can I react twice with the same ship (ignore the extended reaction case), once during the raid sub phase and then again during the operational movement sub phase?

My thinking is "yes" because 314 incorporates 205 by reference, and 205 specifically refers to the sub-phase of "operational movement." Thus, you have two sub-phases, each of which is entitled to reaction.

My opponent (Rob Padilla) doesn't think so, and IMHO he has a perfectly valid point - which is that the evolution of the rules didn't consider the details of the extended SoP as it exists today, and the intent of the rule is to allow only one reaction per "operations" phase.

Nevertheless, I think the issue needs clarification from the FEAR. Thanks.
*****
R: Operational Movement is phase 3B in the SOP and specifically reactions are allowed in phase 3B3. Raids are reacted to in 3A-2C which is a separate part of the SOP. I was thinking this had been ruled on before, but I cannot find a reference to it. A ship can react to both raids and operational movement since the SOP allows for two separate reactions.
*****
Robert Padilla:
Question about MMGs (321.0):

If I have the following battle force that is Klingon commanded, and has an Admiral:
C8+ADM, 3xD5, D6M, 3xD7C, 3xD7, L-BC+MMG

Can I use the Lyran MMG to add an extra Lyran Troop ship to the battle line?
*****
A: Yes, (321.0) does not limit which empire can or cannot use a MMG in a battle force with allied ships.
*****
Ahmad Abdel-Hameed:
Q: What is required to maintain control of a captured planet? (508.23) first only talks about ships and then it talks about ships and PDUs. (508.233) talks about retaining control with a ship or PDU or base. This is more than confusing.
*****
A: You can use any one of three units to garrison each planet you wish to occupy in a hex. These are a PDU, a base such as a MB, BATS, or SB, and a ship. Non-ship units such as a FRD cannot garrison. The reason bases are not mentioned in (508.23) is that they have to be setup and cannot, by rule, start garrisoning a planet.
*****
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paul Ross:
Q: Strategic Operations adds Engineers, Diplomats and Theater Transports to the Klingon Home Fleet. Are those units released with the Home Fleet or when they go to war ?

541.11 Specifically states: All races can activate one engineer regiment (for free) on the first turn they are actually "at war" (not just on a wartime economy). Activate seems to indicate that they would be activated and ready for action on turn 1.

540.15 Diplomatic teams function for races at peace... Which could mean that the diplomatic ships would never need to be `released.'
*****
A: The engineer regiment (541.11) is not actually created until the first turn the race is “at war”, so they should not be in the setup. For Diplomatic teams, they have specific rules (540.15) for Diplomatic teams while at peace that allow them to leave the capital and as such they are not limited by the Home Fleet restrictions.
******
Shayne Demeria:
Checked the archives, and didn't see if this has been asked and answered yet, but it is in regards to CEDS, as well as overstuffing a group.

I'll use a Fed Example.

The Feds have a CVB+DE+FFE and 2 CVS+DE+FFE groups in a Hex.
Q1: Can I take the escorts from the 1 CVS group, and give them to the other two groups, then feed the fighters forward as an independent squadron?
*****
A1: Yes, as long as you comply with (515.0) Flexible Carrier Groups
*****

Q2: Next, on the CEDS Phase, can I take the NOW escort less CVS and return to a star base where a NCL and DW are to convert them to escorts?
*****
A2: Yes, as long as the carrier was involved in combat that turn and with your example the loss of fighters in an independent squadron constitutes involvement in combat. You may want to check to see if a tac note has been done on this and submit one.
*****

Q3: Can that NCL, and DW have been used in a strike earlier in my own phase?
******
A3: Yes, as long as they are at the required base at SOP step 6D.
******
Paul Ross:
Q: Can the Klingon engineers move on turn 1 with the new builds/activations in the General War scenario?

601.161 ...and anything else that a race "at war" could do.

541.12 All races can activate one engineer regiment (for free) on the first turn they are actually "at war" (not just on a wartime economy.)

The quotations are from the rulebooks, leading me to believe that the Engineers are available to move on the first turn.
*****
A: Yes, (601.161) allows the Klingons to activate their first Engineer regiment per (541.12).
*****
Bill Schoeller:
Q: (410.31) States that FLEETS out of supply cannot use extended reaction (205.3).

I have an out of supply Hydran ship that is in a Kzinti fleet (7 Kzinti including scout and the Hydran THR) that has not been able to be supported as homeless yet (but would be in supply at the start of the Coalition turn). The Kzinti would like to use extended reaction with its scout and herd the Hydran THR along with the fleet. We assumed that the ship could not use extended reaction, but I figured I would ask the question anyway.
*****
A: Until a homeless supply line (410.5) is established any units out of supply have to comply with (410.31)
*****
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Robert Padilla:
Q: The IC is covered by rule 525.316. Section "A" of this rule says the following:

"The ship can be built on the third turn of building a new shipyard (or any later turn), but (if using the limited "Old Colonies" shipyard) only if no other ships (exception: PG and starbase frigate production) are built on the same turn."

The way this reads to me, I think it's saying that the Hydrans cannot use the OC shipyard to build a ship in the same turn as the IC, but that a minor shipyard would be able to build a ship on the same turn that the IC is built. My reasoning for that is simply because minor shipyards did not exist back when AO was written, so they Hydran simply had no other way to build a ship outside of what 525.316 outlines, but now they do.

So is this correct and building the IC only stops the Hydrans from building a ship at the OC Shipyard, or does it stop production at all shipyards?
*****
R: The stopping of other ships at the Old Colonies shipyard to produce the IC is only limited to that shipyard. Minor shipyards will still continue to function up to the economic capacity of the Hydrans at that time. Reasoning is that the exception to the stopping of all production is the PG and Starbase frigate production which are separate production facilities. A minor shipyard would fall into that classification and by definition not be in the same location as the new shipyard being produced out of the “Old Colonies” shipyard.
*****
John de Michele:
Q: Is it possible to build two different minor shipyards/conversion facilities at the same starbase or major planet? I was looking through the rules in PO, and searching through the archives, but couldn't find anything that would prohibit it.
*****
A: (450.13) provides for “Minor shipyards can be built at any…”. Note this is plural and my interpretation is that you can build multiple minor shipyards at a qualifying location.
*****
Trent Telenko:
The Lyrans get their heavy war destroyer in Spring Y180, long after their second turn of PF deployment.

Q1: Can they build HDW-POG in anticipation of getting their HDW? After all, they are seeing the Klingon's deploy HDW-POG for a year prior to their building HDWs.
*****
A1: (525.23P) says clearly that each race may build one HDW-POG per turn starting on with the second turn of PF production. For the Lyrans this is Turn 21 or F178. They don’t get their HDWs until Y180. This would allow them to build a HDW-POG in F178, S179, and F179, but the POG would sit around doing nothing until the first HDW was built in S180. Note, that the POGs will occupy the limited PFT production slots during this time also.
*****
Q2: Also, can they build HDW-POG for their JPG, even though it is impossible to get scout sensors on them?
*****
A2: No, (525.242) does not permit a “P” mission for the Jagdpanther.
*****
Daniel Knipfer:
Q: At what point in the sequence of play do you change your Political/Wartime status? You change your Economic status at 1C of a player's own turn. Do you have to wait till that step to change your wartime status or does your wartime status change at the beginning of a full turn.

Example - On Turn 4 of Demon of the East Wind can the Federation send the 5th Fleet Reserve to support the Gorn against the Rom on Turn 4 Coalition or do they have to wait till Turn 4 Alliance?
*****
A: (600.31) provides that a Fleet that is not released cannot do reserve movement until released. Going to war by doing something aggressive that causes the Federation to go to war in the example provided releases the 5th Fleet. Unless the Coalition does anything to change the wartime status of the Federation they must wait until their step 1C of their turn to change their status.
*****
Loren Knight:
Q: Question regarding 610 Koval’s Lightning (Sector D.)

To make an effective assault on the Fed capitol, is it advantageous (or necessary) to capture and control province 2909?

What about province 2609?
*****
A: These are strategy questions and not rules questions, please take them to an appropriate topic for discussion.
*****
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Peter Hill:
I have searched the archives and, although this topic has come up in the past, there has been no definitive answer. So in the chance I can get one I hopefully ask...

In Star Fleet Battles the Klingon CVT SSD seems to have *exactly* the same systems as a Klingon TGA equipped with two carrier pods, while in F&E they are rated as 7-8(5) [CVT] versus 8(5) [TGA + 2VP] respectively.

Is (a) the SFB SSD correct and the F&E factors are just a quirk of carrier conversion from an earlier edition of F&E or (b) are the F&E factors correct and SFB should actually have a different (modified) SSD for the 'true' Klingon CVT?

*****
A:Doctrine: it is one of those things that the designer did that are not necessarily matching from one game to the next. Counter values will not change, so we use the word "Doctrine" to explain why there is a discrepancy. If you wish to know more there is a topic to ask those "why does this work this way?" questions of the designer.
*****
*****
Appeal results of PGR:

Trent Telenko:

Q: Concerning the Hydran free production of one PGS hull ship by the Guilds per year: There are no other limits -- besides the F.E.A.R./G.O.D. ruling of only four PGV with free fighter factors -- on PG hull production in the rules set.

Are you adding, via ruling, a new build limit that eliminates Guild new PG hull production from the pool of hulls capable of becoming PGRs?

Thus requiring the Hydrans to use an existing PGS and major conversion to make a PGR?

A: (525.318) is very clear that only PGS, PGC, PFT, PGF, PGG, or PGV (subject to year of availability) are available from the Guilds. To make it into a PGR will require the use of a conversion from a PGS and 3 EP. It does not take a Major Conversion to do so. (542) allows the Hydrans to produce Survey Ships under those rules, not a freebie. The Guilds would not help the Hydran Government explore the area they want for themselves.

Michael Lui:
________________________________________
Quote:
A: (525.318) is very clear that only PGS, PGC, PFT, PGF, PGG, or PGV (subject to year of availability) are available from the Guilds.
________________________________________
This rule was written before the PGR was introduced into the game. Can you please "bump" it up to Chuck or SVC for clarification.

I could see it having a limit of 4 like the PGV or even being placed under the same 4 limit as the PGV. IE: 4 PGVs and 4 PGRs OR 4 PGV/PGR ships free, mix and match your choice.

M Lui:

Before I do, I want clarification from you why the Hydrans should be given, for free, four more survey ships? I don't see a really good reason right now.

Michael Lui:

Like I said, you could put them under the PGV limit. 4 ships of the PGV/PGR class in total. Which would be more valuable to any particular player? 3 PGVs and 1 PGR? 2 and 2?

But I'm mainly just arguing that they weren't around when the original rule and adjustments (4 PGVs) were done and so should be looked at again. Besides which, there is very little difference between the PGS and PGR in normal combat, and you can only send 2 PGRs off-map after the HDW "freebie". And on-map survey exposes them to raids since there isn't that much territory that can't be reached by a fast or X ship from Lyran or Klingon space.....once the Hydrans get back on the map. So having more than 2, maybe 3, only means that they are PGSs with a fancy name (and 1 fighter).

A: Sent to Chuck for review.

FEDS response:

From R11 – the R9.122 rule indicates that one was converted ‘by the Guilds’ so I’m inclined to believe they would permit just one PGR (but not more) to be built via free production. So my ruling is that only one PGR may be produced via free production but the Hydran player must still pay for the survey support lines.
*****
Ryan Opel:
Q1: (527.22) states that further NVH production (F-111 carrier) can begin in S180. (532.223) states that the Feds get 1 F-111 carrier per spring turn Y177-Y179 under the HVY fighter limit. The first ship is a discounted NVH. Does 532.223 mean the Y178 and Y179 can’t be NVH’s?
*****
A1: (527.21) states that in the spring of Y177 and Y178 there were two NVHs built. The question is what to do with the spring of Y179, as once it gets to the spring of Y180 the PFT limits take effect. One additional NVH could be built in the spring of Y179 to allow for the additional F111 “heavy” carrier allowed under (532.223).
*****
Q2: (527.21) says that the Feds receive two discounted NVH’s in S177 and S178. It has a note) (Note: Historically, one of the two NVHs carried F-111s and the other A20s. As the A20 is not represented as a distinct unit in F&E, being subsumed into the overall fighter factor concept, this historical detail is overlooked and both original NVHs are assumed to carry F-111s for simplicity.) Since the A-20 has been now added (532.0) how does this affect the discount and the production limits given in (532.223)? Does 527.21 need to change to reflect the discounted NVH in S178 and the discounted NHA in F178 to match (532.223) which states that the Feds get 1 A-20 carrier per Fall turn Y177-Y179 under the HVY fighter limit. The first ship would be the discounted NHA.
*****
A2: The two “heavy” carriers in (527.21) can be built as either NVH or NHA with the discounts provided in (440.1).
*****
Q3: General Production. (It would also solve some Fed CV production/history/limits issues)

Can accelerated production be used to bring a ship class into service 1 turn early? Example the NVL YIS is Y173. In F172 could you accelerate production of a NVL?
*****
A3: Yes.
*****
Ahmad Abdel-Hameed:
Q: Can a theater transport carry some fraction of a turn's worth of Kestral supplies for the Romulans?
*****
R: Yes, per the number of EPs as a fraction of 10 specified in the SIT for that ship. For example: The F5T has a capacity of 5 EPs. It could carry ½ a turn of parts (5/10=1/2).
*****
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 07:06 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Lee Hanna:
[...]
*****
Q2. We're a little confused on Raid procedures. When a raider enters a Raid Target hex with lots of enemy ships, the enemy's Battle Force is limited to one that can participate in ESSC, right?

*****
A2: (314.21) provides for one ship or equivalent to react to a raid.
________________________________________


Mike, could I get a "do-over" on this one.

Lee's question was that a raider enters a hex with enemy ships already there, not a hex near a stack of enemy ships.

Rule 314.25 says "If there are already two or more enemy ships or equivalents in the Raid Target Hex, then ALL of them may (but are not required to) fight the Raiding Ship (318.7)"

I believe the question came because the rule says "all" but then directly references the SSC rule, which got replaced by the ESSC rule.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, May 17, 2009 - 10:18 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Ted Fay:

320.42 provides that "only the fixed defenses at the target location are used in combat against the raiding ship."

Defending Opponent reacts a troop ship onto the planet during a commando raid under 320.4.

I can find no enabling rule that allows this action. As far as I can tell, only an IGCE could be used (as it is a "fixed" defense), but that would have had to have been established on the prior turn of the defender.

Question: Opponent wants to "drop" the G factor from the troop ship to protect the target PDUs. Is this action allowed?

*****
A: (320.42) states clearly that only the fixed defenses at the target location are used in combat against the raiding ship which is a commando ship. So, no, the reacting troop ship cannot place G factors on the planet to assist. References to (521.xx) are for ground attacks on PDUs, not raids.
*****
________________________________________
I appeal this ruling on the basis that it is unbalancing. Currently, a player (usually the Alliance) may send in an escorted commando raid against a MB setting up as a BATS. With this ruling the raiding has a 50% chance of crippling the MB and a decent chance of destroying it. That's 25 EPs of damage (10 for MB, 15 for BATS) plus two turns of setup plus 2 turns of tug - for a raid that costs nothing that will not be able to stopped in any way and against which there is no defense. There is something wrong with this rule.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Sunday, May 17, 2009 - 12:47 pm: Edit

>A1: (525.23P) says clearly that each race may build one
>HDW-POG per turn starting on with the second turn of PF
> production. For the Lyrans this is Turn 21 or F178. They
>don’t get their HDWs until Y180. This would allow them to
>build a HDW-POG in F178, S179, and F179, but the POG
> would sit around doing nothing until the first HDW was
>built in S180. Note, that the POGs will occupy the limited
>PFT production slots during this time also.


I am appealing this decision on the following grounds:

"How can you build a HDW mission module for a ship type that does not exist in the SIT yet?"

1) "(525.21) PRODUCTION:" states in part --

"Also note that HDWs cannot be produced until the date of availability shown on the SIT for each race."

2) Two other rules for the Lyran Jagpanther (JGP) and one for the Hydran LHN also point to the "You cannot build a mission module until you can build HDWs for them."

a. Rule (525.242) lists the HDW mission modules available to the Lyrans prior to Y180 and the POG is not among them.

b. Rule (525.243) on Lyran JPG carrier operations groups (COG) makes clear that they cannot buy more than one Lyran COG prior to Y180 and then buys them under (525.23V).

c. And rule (525.253) limits the total number of Hydran COG to two (one for each LHN) prior to HDW production.

I also note that there is now a further issue regards this ruling to consider.

The issue of the HDW FCR operation groups.

This ruling means the Hydrans and Lyrans can effectively buy and stockpile FOPs in excess of their JGP and LHN hull numbers for when their HDW production arrives. As a member of the Advanced Operations development staff, I don't believe this is the intent of the Game Designer when he was creating AO, given the limits placed on the LHN and JGP.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, May 21, 2009 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Question:

During combat of a non-phasing player turn a CV group consisting of {SAV,AD5,F5E} is damaged. Due to the tactical situation, the Klingon player decides to kill the SAV and cripple the AD5.

Are the [AD5] and/or F5E allowed to perform CEDS retrogade?

The argument that they "may not" rests on the assumption that once the CV is dead the group falls apart. The argument that they "may" rests on the thinking that the "group" participated in combat and was damaged - which would allow the escorts to use CEDS retrograde.

308.131 appears to be vague on this issue, as it only mentions "CV groups."

Official ruling requested.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Thursday, May 21, 2009 - 02:33 pm: Edit

The Hydrans have activated the Feds on turn 5 Alliance. This brings the Feds to full war.

What are the release requirements for the 5th and 7th fleets. According to the 602.2 The 5th fleet detachment is only released of Klingons enter Federation territory. Also, according to 602.2 the 7th fleet is released (in addition to other restrictions) is released on the second turn of after a Klingon or Romulan invation if not otherwise released. My interpretation of these rules is that the Coalition has a choice. It can attack the Federation and release the additional forces at the required rate or not enter Fed territory and fight a defensive war only. I assume there is no other adjustment to Hydran activation of the Fed that would supercede any of the Fleet release status.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, May 21, 2009 - 03:45 pm: Edit

I'm going to have to ask the FEAR to revisit this question:
________________________________________
Quote:
Lee Hanna:
Q1. Once the Tholian Border Squadron transfers to the active front, and the East Fleet takes over that area; the Klingons cannot move into the NZ hexes next to the Tholians and claim them, right? (That is, until T7 or later, when the East Fleet activates.)

*****
A1: The Tholian NZ hexes cannot be occupied until the Klingons are at war with the Federation.
________________________________________


Note rule (503.64): "Races at Wartime status (652.2) may occupy and hold Neutral Zone hexes adjacent to the Tholians, LDR, and WYN cluster. Use (503.62) in that case."

The reference to (652.2) clearly indicates that the "Wartime status" refered to is economic War status, and the reference to (503.62) indicates that any occupier would almost certainly have to keep ships in the hexes to receive income (interestingly, I can't find a rules definition of "enemy", but I assume that the Tholians qualify as an enemy of the Klingons even if the two are not at War), and that hex 2617 is considered adjacent to the Federation (and thus not capturable until the Feds enter the war, by (503.61)).

In relation to the original question, while (503.64) explicitly permits the Klingons to capture hexes 2618, 2619, and 2718, rule (600.31) forbids them from using any unreleased units (such as the East Fleet, in the context of the question) to do so. (Because those NZ hexes are not in the deployment area of any unreleased units.)
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, May 21, 2009 - 03:58 pm: Edit

In regards Ted Fay's appeal of the ruling on (320.42):

Rule (320.41) indicates that the "G" attack is in place of the normal (314.25) attack. The reference to such an attack would appear to be in (314.252), which refers to (314.28). (Note that the ability of the defender to send all of his units in the hex to attack the raider is an option of the defender; (320.41) indicates that the "G" attack is an option of the attacker. Nothing in (320.41) indicates that the defender's options are limited.)

In all probability, (320.41)'s reference to (314.25) should actually be a reference to (314.28).
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Thursday, May 21, 2009 - 10:14 pm: Edit

Ted, a carrier group remains as a 'group' until the player's next turn when he decides to keep it a group or not. (308.131A) states that a group with CEDS damage can retrograde during the opposing turn (includes destroyed units). So the [AD5] and F5E can retro...
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 09:11 am: Edit

I am appealing what appears to be a long-standing ruling, but I think its wrong.
________________________________________
Quote:
========================

Paul Howard:

Devastated Kzinti (1802) planet is recaptured on Alliance turn 10.

Does it provide Ep's on Alliance Turn 11?

508.22 refers to capturing - and 508.24 (recapturing) doesn't menion any delays, so I assume it's immediate?

ANSWER: Rule (508.22) says that income is generated on the second subsequent turn of possession.

So if you recapture Alliance 10, then Alliance 11 is the first subsequent turn (no income), and Alliance turn 12 is the second subsequent turn (devestated income is generated). Note that turn 11 does count as the first of the four recovery turns, even though you get no income. Turn 12 is the second of four recovery turns. Alliance 13 and 14 are the third and fourth turns of recovery (devestated income). Full income would be restored on Alliance turn 15, after the four turns have passed.

=======================
________________________________________


Summary of Appeal:
The context of 508.22 very clearly deals with the situation where you capture an enemy planet. For example, 508.22 refers to "capturing" a planet by devastating and occupying it. You wouldn't re-devastate your own planet to "capture" or "recapture" it. Thus, 508.22 doesn't apply to "liberated" planets, and so liberated planets immediately produce at the devastated rate.

This result makes more sense than the original ruling. A captured enemy planet takes more time to squeeze money out of. The enemy is fighting you. However, a liberated friendly planet *wants* to help out and thus should be able to eke out that extra EP or two immediately.


Argument
The ruling states that "Rule (508.22) says that income is generated on the second subsequent turn of posession." I respectfully submit that the ruling has not actually taken into accout an important word in 508.22 - "captured." In other words, "captured" planets suffer the delay in EP production. The question is one of semantics, so I will define terms. A "liberated planet" is one that originally belonged to you that you took back. (508.24 uses the term "recaptured," but does so in context by specifically referring to the original owner taking the planet back - so the term "liberated" is still appropriate.) A "captured" planet is a planet you take from the enemy. Without additional words in context (like 508.24), "recaptured" means a planet that you took, the enemy liberated, and you took back.

508.22 *clearly* states that "captured" planets suffer the delay in EP production. Liberated is not captured. Therefore, liberated planets do not experience the delay in EP production (but will produce at the devastated rate).

The only counter to this argument is to say that the term "captured," as defined above, includes "liberated," as defined above. However, I respectfully submit that this interpretation is not accurate.

508.22 defines how planets are captured. If an enemy devastates all defenses and drives out all defending units, he captures the planet. The actual text is, "If the planetary defenses are
destroyed, and the planet is devastated, and alt other defending units are eliminated from the hex, the planet has been captured. (If the planet was devastated on a previous turn, three points must still be scored to eliminate residual
defenses.)"

In the very next sentence, the rule states that the "capturing" player receives income on the second subsequent turn. The actaul text says, "On the second subsequent turn of continuous possession, the capturing player receives the production at the devastated rate." (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, in context, if you *take* an enemy planet, then there's a delay before you receive income. I respectfully submit that this result has nothing to do with whether you liberate your own planet. Let's put it this way: You don't devastate your own planet to "capture" it under 508.22. Thus, 508.22 clearly doesn't apply to when you take your own planet. Accordingly, the terms "liberate" and "capture" have a distinction with a difference.

In summary, the context of 508.22 very clearly deals with the situation where you capture an enemy planet. You wouldn't re-devastate your own planet to "capture" or "recapture" it. Thus, 508.22 doesn't apply to "liberated" planets, and so liberated planets immediately produce at the devastated rate.

Furthermore, this result makes more sense than the original ruling. A captured enemy planet takes more time to squeeze money out of. The enemy is fighting you. However, a liberated friendly planet *wants* to help out and thus should be able to eke out that extra EP or two immediately.

Furthermore, at least one other rule appears to support the concept of more rapid recovery for liberted friendly planets. For example, 508.24 appears to support the concept of "instantly" getting something back - the RDF. Thus, if anything, 508.24 appears to support the inference that liberated planets more quickly receive something - thereby actually the proposition that "liberated" planets are not contemplated within the meaning of 508.22.

Nevertheless, this appeal is not based on a reference to 508.24, but rather on the plain words of 508.22 in their context. I respectfully submit that, in the context of 508.22, "captured" does not include friendly planets that you take back from the enemy because you don't re-devastate your own planet to capture it. Therefore, the ruling should be overturned.

Thank you for your consideration.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 09:43 am: Edit

Ted, I gotta agree with your logic there. That makes a lot of sense, and is well-written. Good luck with the appeal.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 11:47 am: Edit

Kevin, thanks. I'm a lawyer by trade, so I put those skills to good use.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 12:51 pm: Edit

OK, I think Ihave a counter argument here:

In 508.22, Ted is correct that the rule states:
"If the planetary defenses are destroyed, and the planet is devastated, and all other defending units are eliminated from the hex, the planet has been captured. (If the planet was devastated on a previous turn, three points must still be scored to eliminate residual defenses.)"

However, I would argue that Ted's statement that the original owner would have to devistate their own planet is in error.
________________________________________
Quote:
Let's put it this way: You don't devastate your own planet to "capture" it under 508.22.
________________________________________


That is not what 508.22 says. What 508.22 says is that in order to capture (recapture) a planet, all Defending forces must be driven off and/or destroyed and the planet must already be devistated (which it is since it was captured in the first place). That sentence says nothing further, it ends. Then the rules says "If the planet was devastated on a previous turn, three points must still be scored to eliminate residual defenses.". This clearly would not apply to an originally owned planet, since there would be no RDF in the first place. So clearly that last bit is in there for the occasion when a RDF *is* present. Otherwise planets could be captured with an RDF on them, creating a perpetual battle hex.

So I disagree that 508.22 *only* covers the case of capturing an enemy planet. In fact I believe the wording of the rule covers both cases quite well.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Respectfully, the assertion that my statement is in error is, itself, incorrect. Under the rule as written, the original owner would have to devastate his own planet. We know this from the context.

The context is that the PDUs "are" destroyed and all other defending units "are" eliminated. These two procecesses are part of capturing the planet. Within this context, the natural understanding of the term "is devastated" refers to the same process of eliminating all possible opposition and taking the planet itself by force (which causes the devastation in the first place).

Furthermore, the assertion that 508.22 says that "all defending forces must be driven off and/or destroyed and the planet must already be devistated} is clearly in error (emphasis supplied). The term "already" does not appear explicitly in the text.

Furthermore, I respectfully submit that reading the the rule to include "already" (as in "already devastated") is inferring more from the text than is there. There's no indication in the language or in its context that the word "already" (as in "already devastated") can be inferred from the the rule. In the context of the other *actions* (destroyed, eliminated) that are required to capture a planet, there's no reason to believe that "is devastated" is passive - but rather that "is devastated" is also an action.

Furthermore, the fact that the reference to eliminating the RDF does not apply argues in favor of my position. One would not eliminate his own RDF, and the impossibility of a perpetual battle hex pointed out by Robert only further proves that this rule (508.22) is referring to *enemy action*, not friendly liberation. Yet further, eliminating an RDF is also an *action* - thus contributing to the overall inference that "is devastated" is also an action. If "is devastated" is an action and "already" cannot reasonably be read into the rule, then there's no solid reason to believe that 508.22 applies to liberation - only to enemy action.

Still further, the appeal does not rest only on the grounds that the player is devastating his own planet. The appeal also relies on the fact that it makes more sense that a liberated planet is going to try to help its owner, vice a conquerer. The appeal further relies on a natural reading of the wording of the rule, and its context of enemy action vice liberation.

Therefore, I respectfully submit that the assertion that "the wording of the rule covers both cases quite well" is in error and has been refuted.


I also believe that this issue could be cleared up in the Warbook with a few words regarding liberation.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 03:10 pm: Edit

By the way, I made an off-hand remark about being a lawyer, but I'm not trying to be a jerk of a "rules lawyer." I honestly believe that the ruling is incorrect and I'm just using what written communication skills I have to be as clear as possible about my reasoning.

Normally, I'm not so formal about game-related rules questions.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 03:13 pm: Edit

This, to this point has been very helpful for me to figure out what is going on. Let it be a lesson to others on how to ask for a question to be answered or a ruling be made on something questionable.

Thank you Ted. I have in no way taken this to be "rules lawyerish" in nature.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Thanks for understanding Mike.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 04:21 pm: Edit

FEDS Clarification on Planetary Status Issues:
If the: Captures (or Liberates) a planet during: Then the planet becomes a SUPPLY POINT at: And begins PRODUCING EPs during:

Coalition Player Coalition Turn X the start of the Alliance Turn X Coalition Turn X+2
Alliance Turn X the start of the Coalition Turn X+1 Coalition Turn X+2
.
Alliance Player Alliance Turn X the start of the Coalition Turn X+1 Alliance Turn X+2
Coalition Turn X the start of the Alliance Turn X Alliance Turn X+1


If the: Devastates an enemy planet during: Then the planet RECOVERS from the devastation at: And PRODUCES full income during:

Coalition Player Coalition Turn X the start of the Alliance Turn X+4 Alliance Turn X+4
Alliance Turn X the start of the Coalition Turn X+5 Alliance Turn X+5
.
Alliance Player Alliance Turn X the start of the Coalition Turn X+5 Coalition Turn X+5
Coalition Turn X the start of the Alliance Turn X+4 Coalition Turn X+5


If the: Liberates a friendly planet during: Then the planet RECOVERS from the devastation at: And PRODUCES full income during:

Coalition Player Coalition Turn X the start of the Alliance Turn X+4 Coalition Turn X+5
Alliance Turn X the start of the Coalition Turn X+5 Coalition Turn X+5
.
Alliance Player Alliance Turn X the start of the Coalition Turn X+5 Alliance Turn X+5
Coalition Turn X the start of the Alliance Turn X+4 Alliance Turn X+4
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 04:41 pm: Edit

To help track of planetary status, I recommend the following notations for map and/or notebook marking:

D3C: Planet devastated during Coalition turn-3
C2A: Planet captured during Alliance turn-2
L17A: Planet liberated during Alliance turn-17

Events:
D=Devastated
C=Captured
L=Liberated

Timing:
#C=Turn number of the event during Coalition player's turn
#A=Turn number of the event during Alliance player's turn
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Chuck, if you haven't done so yet, please send the above two messages to SVC in chart format so he has it in case he wishes to put it in CL39.

Thank you.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Wow, that was FAST. Not the way the rule reads to me, but I'll accept it.

Warbook should be clarified to match the above ruling.
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 11:44 pm: Edit

Well it looks that covered ALL the bases with that chart - nice work Chuck. This is a must for the new Warbook.
By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Is it possible to strip the fighter modules from a FRD+ and transfer them onto a base in the same hex?
Should this be so then one can get a free set of fighter modules by this procedure as one is only paying the for the fighers when purchasing a FRD+
If one looks at the cost listed in the SIT FRD=10 : FRD+ = 10+6 (no 2EP for the actual modules)
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 09:40 pm: Edit

It's actually more expensive. A fighter module has three fighter factors on it, so if the FRD+ costs 10+6, then the fighter module is costing 3+ fighters instead of two. A typo maybe?
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 09:50 pm: Edit

I was under the impression that the fighter module is 1+3 EACH, with a FRD being able to hold one or two modules.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 10:06 pm: Edit

The FRD+ has two FTM, and should cost 12+6. I reported this in the SIT section well over a year ago, and it got lost when the staff couldn't agree on how the rules should be applied. (Go and look in the MASTER SIT UPDATES archive through January 02, 2009; use your browser's search function to find FRD+.) If anyone can figure out how to phrase the line item so that the correct answer falls out, go ahead.

In regards the original question, I suspect that the FEAR will point you at (441.441): "They [fighter and PF modules] can be removed from FRDs [...]" At this point they're just modules and (441.421) should apply. Then again, I'm not the FEAR.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 11:21 pm: Edit

FRDs built with FTMs cost either 10+3 (1 FTM) or 10+6 (2 FTMs).

ADDING FTMs later cost 1+3 each.

PFMs are base-like units and can transfer their PFs like other non-PDU bases.

(Mike please correct me if i'm wrong.)
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, May 25, 2009 - 09:55 am: Edit

FEDS is correct. Staff did review the FRD situation and gave a bonus to the FRD if it is built with the modules that they didn't cost anything except for the fighters.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, May 25, 2009 - 12:44 pm: Edit

This may be a "why?" question, but how on Earth did they come up with that decision? Even bases pay for their fighter modules (see (441.2)).

I'm going to appeal this one, if I can, on the grounds that
• it's not supported by the rules as written (everything in (441.4) indicates that the modules must be paid for);
• there's no other unit in the game that gets its fighter modules for free (it's clearly indicated in (441.2) that building bases without fighter modules saves you the cost of the modules); and
• it causes the situation that Jason refers to above, where folks build FRD+ when they would not otherwise in order to strip them of their fighter modules to save the EP involved when upgrading bases (note that because (441.441) indicates that removing the modules "takes no time" the situation can easily be arranged that there's no opportunity cost for using this trick).
I'll withdraw the appeal if it's now permitted to use (441.2) to build an FRD without fighter modules at a cost of 8 EP (or 9+3 for an FRD with only one module).
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 25, 2009 - 01:09 pm: Edit

Dave:

Mike and I will take your points under advisement and review the issue.

Chuck
FEDS
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, May 30, 2009 - 12:45 pm: Edit

(320.46) States that a Monitor with a planet blocks Commando attacks against any PDU or other things on the planet.

My question is (320.46) A planet with the original number of PDUs has a Tug setting up a MB or upgrading a MB comes under a commando raid. The base in question has previously been desginated as being co-located with the planet. Would the monitor then block the commando attack against the base under (320.46)? I can see that it would obviously block a G attack against a PRD.

The only previous ruling I can find based on a seach of (320.46) is this one By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 11:32 pm:
________________________________________
Quote:
Ken S. Towery (Maxoman):

I'm a little confused regarding Commando Raids (320.4), specifically how combat and reaction interact with the rule.

ANSWER: Good questions here. The short answer? Reaction/Interception rules don't interact with the commando raid rule at all. Only regular combat vs the fixed defenses happens, and you only have the fixed defenses making a single combat roll, followed by ground attacks by surviving G factors.

Example: Klingons raid Kzinti planet 1802 with a D6G, D7 (with Prime Team), and F5. All ships originate from the raid pool and the D7 and F5 are acting as "consorts" as per (320.222). ... Assume the Kzinti's react 6 fighter factors from the BATS in 1902, and the planet has 2 PDUs.

Now rule (320.222) says the consorts "would make no contribution to the Raid Attack but might fight in the Interception Battle. Consorts of a commando ship could absorb damage from the raid battle, but could not contribute to the attack."

ANSWER: First, under (320.222), "interception battle" rule (320.35) ONLY applies to fighter/pf and drone raids. Commando raids instead use the last parenthetical sentence from that rule (320.222). In fact all of (320.3) applies ONLY to fighter-pf and drone raids.

Given that the consorts "might fight in the Interception Battle", would their compot be applicable in the combat created by the reaction (314.25)? As well, rule (314.253) talks about a raider having to fight all bases, PDU's, etc, in a hex BEFORE a specific PDU could be attacked. But since this is a "commando raid" and the purpose is to attack one or more of the PDU's with "G" factors, I am thoroughly confused as to the sequence of events for the combat resolution.

ANSWER: You don't have an "interception battle" or a reaction battle for a commando raid. You just have the one round of the fixed defenses plus a ground attack roll, consorts in a commando raid absorb damage but do not contribute compot as per the last sentence of (320.222). Rule (314.253) is referring to an alternative attack (314.28) made against a PDU after the reaction battle in a regular raid. In such a case of a regular raider attacking a PDU instead of disrupting the province you do have two combats (the reaction battle and then the alternative attack). In a commando raid (320.41) the commando ship makes its G attack INSTEAD of its normal attack in the one battle against the fixed defenses, and it then cannot disrupt a province or use (320.41), it just goes back to the raid pool, so rule (314.253) never applies in a commando raid.

And when the combat does take place what units would the Kzinti use in any battle prior to the "G" attack? Would they only have the 6 fighters reacted from the base, OR would they have 18 fighter factors (6 ff's from the BATS plus the 12 ff's from the PDU's)? Or would the group fight one PDU as a whole unit (compot 9), then fight the other with a "G"? Or am I completed misunderstanding the intent of the rule and the combat is completely different...?

ANSWER: As per (320.42), only the fixed defenses fight. Thus it is sort of pointless to react something (or call up a police ship) to a commando raid as due to (320.42) you simply cannot stop them that way, such a unit cannot interact with the raiders. The way to block commando raids is with Monitors (320.46). Without a Monitor, IGCEs are great as they can affect the G attack roll and can be given up in place of damage.

The reason for the attacker to bring consorts is that with only a commando ship, it would be crippled or destroyed by the fixed defenses, degrading or eliminating the G factor prior to its ground combat roll (some crippled ships lose their G factor, and G attacks from crippled ships suffer a die roll penalty). With consorts, they can absorb the damage (barring the enemy having enough damage to direct on the commando ship) thus allowing the G factor to make its roll from an uncrippled troopship.

I know the rule can be confusing. Please note that (320.1) and (320.2) apply to special raids in general. Rule (320.3) applies ONLY to fighter/PF and Drone raids. Rule (320.4) is only for commando raids, and rule (320.5) is only for blockade running. Note that blockade running and fighter/PF/Drone raids have separate "interception" rules. Commando raids do not have interception at all, they only have to worry about surviving the fixed defenses or being blocked by the presence of a Monitor.

Consorts in fighter/pf and drone raids can contribute compot to and absorb damage in the interception battle, but have nothing to do with the attack on the "target" of the raid by PF/fighter/drone factors. Consorts in commando raids are there only to draw damage away from the commando ship. There is actually no "combat" roll for the attacker in a commando raid, only the fixed defenses get a combat roll vs. the commando ship and consorts, then (assuming the G factor survived), the raider rolls a G attack vs. the target. The real question not answered in the commando raid rule is what BIR do the fixed defenses roll at? The commando raid rule does not say, but presumably we are still using rule (521.0) when not modified by (320.4), so under (521.33) this would be BIR=5 plus or minus the variable BIR (troopship+consorts vs only fixed defenses, they pick both BIR numbers which must equal 5). Note that the variable BIR result would affect the combat roll of the fixed defenses and the ground attack roll of any surviving G factors.

It is actually much simpler than you are making out. The problem is that rule (320.3) should really be called "Conducting Fighter/PF and Drone Raids" instead of "Conducting Special Raids."

Also note that because of this, Commando Raids and Blockade runners must actually move into the "target hex", they cannot just move to an adjacent "attack hex" as such a concept ONLY applies to fighter-pf and drone raids.

Another fun question is can a commando raider use (521.39) to get the +1 on the G roll even knowing you are sacrificing the ship as you will not control the hex at then end of the raid? Can a troop tug dump its pods on the planet (ultimately sacrificing them and the marines on board) as it warps by? "Express elevator to hell!!!" Probably not allowed to do this though as (521.392) requires you to perform a normal commando operation while this is a special raid. Landing on the planet assumes you are trying to capture the planet, while you are definitely not doing this on a raid. But the troop tug pod thing would be pretty funny.
________________________________________
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 - 09:43 pm: Edit

Question regarding Kzin CVH conversion.

I'd like to convert some Kzinti CVH to BCV(H). Being as the carrier is operating heavy fighters, and the standard BCV operates standard fighters, is there a way to go from CVH to BCVH?

I see from a CVS to BCV for 1 pt. I don't know if it's possible to disband the heavy fighter squadron, replacing it with a standard one, then convert to BCV, and then either recoup the "lost" heavy fighter factors, or transfter them to another unit being constucted in the same hex?

I note that 442.12 allows this in the case of constructing a PF-carrying unit, "lost" fighters can be transferred to another unit built in the same hex and same turn.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 06:16 am: Edit

My 2 cents.

CVH>BCVH: 1+0 You've already paid for the heavy fighters that don't change so all you should have to pay for is the CV>BCV upgrade.
By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, June 29, 2009 - 07:10 pm: Edit

Is there a list of which escorts (heavy/medium/light) can be used by which carriers (heavy/medium/light/escort/aux/etc.) ?

In CW there is a section saying how many escorts can be used by each carrier type, but I havent found a list of the allowable escorts.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, June 29, 2009 - 07:24 pm: Edit

I don't believe they're are any restrictions on which escorts you use as long as they are the proper size(heavy/medium/light).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, June 29, 2009 - 07:25 pm: Edit

As an unofficial answer, you can go by the carrier group breakdowns in the SITs in the books. Please note, however, that those are the "historical" groups, and you can assign any escorts you like within the limits of the "flexible carrier groups" rule (in CVW/FO).
By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, June 29, 2009 - 10:07 pm: Edit

I don't believe they're are any restrictions on which escorts you use as long as they are the proper size(heavy/medium/light).

So a heavy carrier could have any escort, a medium carrier could have medium or light, and light/escort carriers can only have light escorts?

And you would be restricted to a maximum number based on carrier size (Heavy can have up to 5, etc.)?

What about the number of each size of escort?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, June 29, 2009 - 11:08 pm: Edit

What parts of (515.2) and (515.3) (in either Carrier War or Fighter Operations; the two are virtually identical) do you not understand?

(Specific responses to the questions you've asked: yes, within limits; there's no such thing as a "medium" escort; no; yes, but your example is wrong; what about it?)
By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 12:14 am: Edit

What parts of (515.2) and (515.3) (in either Carrier War or Fighter Operations; the two are virtually identical) do you not understand?

The parts which brought me here to ask the questions, probably.

Anyway, I think 515.35 answered my question about the types of escorts.

(Specific responses to the questions you've asked: yes, within limits; there's no such thing as a "medium" escort; no; yes, but your example is wrong; what about it?)

I saw the 5 ships bit, but on looking again it includes the carrier.

As for the "what about it" I was referring to the number of each size of escort, which was also answered above.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 12:33 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
What parts of (515.2) and (515.3) (in either Carrier War or Fighter Operations; the two are virtually identical) do you not understand?

The parts which brought me here to ask the questions, probably.
________________________________________
Natch. However, the answers to your second batch of questions are printed in (515.2) (which covers the number of escorts allowed) and (515.3) (which covers heavy and light escorts). But since you asked the questions, there are two main possibilities (a) you didn't read the rules before asking, or (b) you read the rules, but found them confusing or unclear.

I can do nothing about case (a) aside from saying read the manual, but since I've had sufficient experiences of my own regarding case (b) I figured it'd be a good idea to ask where you thought the problem was, if only because those rules are slated for inclusion in the next printing of the core rules and it might be a good idea for them to be as clear as possible.

Edited by J. Sexton to remove the vulgar and unnecessary acronym.
By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 04:27 am: Edit

there are two main possibilities (a) you didn't read the rules before asking, or (b) you read the rules, but found them confusing or unclear.

I read them, then re-read them, then realised I didnt understand them. Then came and posted here. Read your first reply, read them again, and understood them.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 06:17 am: Edit

Mike, I found this answer to a question I had regarding (309.2) and (318.13). The following is the question and answer
________________________________________
Quote:
Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, November 30, 2003
John Colacito: …can I use 3 bombardment platforms immediately (Y168) or do I also have to wait until Turn 24?

ANSWER: I believe that the turn 24 thing is just for the drone factor increase, while the change from 12 factors to 3 DB units is an actual change to the base rule and thus applies from the start of the game.
________________________________________


However, the above clarification is not in the master errata file but most likely should be in both the F&E2010 Rule book and Warbook. My question was regarding the inclusion of the LAD with 2 other drone ships for a total of 14 DB factors instead of 12 DB factors that the original (309.2) rule provides for.

I realize that the LAD and DND are in a "later" product, but in my opinion the wording of (309.2) leads to confusion by stating the limit of 12 DB factors.
Also If the Kzinti's had the EP's to build a 2nd LAD could they use the 2 LAD's and a 3 DB platform for a total of 16 DB factors before Turn 24?
Thanks in advance.
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 05:46 pm: Edit

Gentlemen,

A gentle reminder. The only stupid question is one which is not asked. If you choose to attempt to answer a question, you should be polite, helpful, and respectful towards the persona asking the question.

The worst mistakes I have seen in a game have been when people thought they understood the rules, but did not. They laid out strategies and plans, only to find when those strategies were executed, the consequences were horrendous.

I suggest that you wish to grow your player base. That is best done by not being snippy when someone asks what, to you, is a simple question. Take them from the point where they are and encourage them to learn.
By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 07:01 pm: Edit

Lyran Turn 1

Attack 0902 with enough to pin, attack 0703 and 0803 with enough to defeat, and attack 0903/1003 in order to pin the Duke's forward force.

The Kzinti use Duke's RESV to go to 0803.

The Lyran's withdraw from 0902 in to 0802. The Lyran force in 0903 win and the Kzin withdraw. 0703 falls and the Kzin need to retreat a BC and FFK.

Question is, where can they withdraw to? 0702 and the 2 Neutral Zone hexes are empty, so I assume they can go to these? In 0803 there are more Lyrans than Kzin.

I ask because I remember in one of the Captain's Logs a comment that the Kzin in 0703 are only ever able to withdraw to 0704. Did I misread this?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 07:34 pm: Edit

Mike,

I have a SIT question and am not sure if I should post here or in the SIT area. I'm going to post here first because it is a question.

On the SIT PDF the Kzinti BCS can be converted from a CVL. The cost listed is 8+6 and is a double conversion. My question doesn't revolve around the 8 EPs required to convert the ship itself, but rather the +6 for fighters. As the CVL already has 4 fighter factors, it would be giving up 1 of those fighter factors in the conversion process. Shouldn't the cost just be 8 for the double converstion plus the cost of PF's calculated separately?

Also I noticed that the BCS can be converted from an ACS for 7 EP, but no fighter cost as it is also giving up fighters, or more accurately trading heavy fighters for PFs and giving up fighters at the same time. Should the conversion cost be the same for both BC variants being converted to a BCS?
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 10:09 pm: Edit

Jason, to me, I think they have to retreat to 702 with no other option. It's the shortest supply path that doesn't violate the ship counts. Not sure you can justify them getting to 704, but I did not see the CL you speak of.
By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 10:51 pm: Edit

I'll try and track down the CL and list the page, so then someone can maybe explain what it meant.

I had assumed 0702 was the right option.

Perhaps the example had 0701 being attacked as well, so that if all 3 BATS and the SB are being attacked, then the ships in 0703 must retreat to the Neutral Zone. But I dont remember it saying this is what attack was done.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 02:13 pm: Edit

July - August 2009 Archive

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 05:53 am: Edit

Jason
________________________________________
Quote:
606.0) William Whitlow noticed that the only valid kzinti retreat hex after the battle in 0703 is in fact 0704.
________________________________________


This answer is in a Capt Log, issue unknown, as I don't have it. It is also in the F&E93-2K Errata PDF that converts the F&E93 rulebook to the F&E2K rulebook.

However, I believe that if 0701 is not attacked then 0702 would be a valid retreat point as the BATS would be considered a supply point.

If I'm wrong someone please correct me.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 07:29 am: Edit

Hmmm...not sure. If 702 has no ships in it (any battle in 701 would force L ships to retreat to 601..shortest path), then 702 would still be choice, as ships in 703 open up supply to 702 and ships/ftrs on SB open up 801 which would be a path to supply.
But of course, until the 'exact' situation is illustrated, this is only speculation
By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 08:10 am: Edit

This answer is in a Capt Log, issue unknown, as I don't have it. It is also in the F&E93-2K Errata PDF that converts the F&E93 rulebook to the F&E2K rulebook.

However, I believe that if 0701 is not attacked then 0702 would be a valid retreat point as the BATS would be considered a supply point.

I found it in the errata as well. After searching through 15 Captain's Logs I finally remembered I didnt see it there, but in the errata.

On looking at it now, it appears to be referring to a specific example. Probably where all BATS and the SB are attacked and the combat occurs at the SB with Lyrans withdrawing, and the Lyrans winning in 0701, meaning 0703 must retreat to 0704.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 07:06 pm: Edit

Mike,

disregard the first half of this post
________________________________________
Quote:
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 07:34 pm
________________________________________
I have found that
________________________________________
Quote:
On the SIT PDF the Kzinti BCS can be converted from a CVL. The cost listed is 8+6 and is a double conversion. My question doesn't revolve around the 8 EPs required to convert the ship itself, but rather the +6 for fighters. As the CVL already has 4 fighter factors, it would be giving up 1 of those fighter factors in the conversion process. Shouldn't the cost just be 8 for the double converstion plus the cost of PF's calculated separately?
________________________________________
was previously reported in the SIT section.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, July 02, 2009 - 09:47 am: Edit

Mike here are the questions you answered by email.


Q. Okay I was looking at the Annex 756 and the rules in 513.121 and 513.136 to determine if the Aux are considered ships. It seems they are not, correct? In the GW opening scenario are the Auxes released or unreleased when the Klingons storm across?

A: Annex 756.0 indeed needs to be updated. Maybe in the F&E 2010 product. The rule (601.12) is 6 ships remain...nothing is said about non-ships (excepting the rules for APT (540.14) and its status in an inactive fleet).

A: The rule (601.12) requires the number of ships to be left behind to be a minimum of six including the CC. The Kzinti cannot use auxiliaries to satisfy this requirement since it requires ships to be part of the remaining force. Therefore anything else left over is available to be activated and used by normal rules.

Q. Do you know of any rule that allows diplomats to be deployed prior to T1 (during set-up) in the GW (601.0) Scen?

A: With the Diplomats listed in the Home fleet they would be deployed in the Home fleet deployment area for each empire. There needs to be a rule saying they can be deployed outside this area to do what you want. They can move by APT and PTR once the Home fleet is released. That is the way it is now. Maybe we can fix this as part of the warbook.

Thanks...
By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 11:44 pm: Edit

Question about conversions in Capitals.

The Capital SB can make a single 4+ point conversion, but the Feds and Klinks can make 2 x 4+ point conversions (and the Roms can do an extra one in Remus).

The Kzinti Capital has a single SB and would therefore be able to only make 1 conversion in that hex per turn, which could be of any cost.

The Klingon/Fed Capitals have 3 SBs in total, so if they were to make 2 x 4+ point conversions, can they only make one more conversion at the 3rd SB? Or are the 2 x 4+ point conversions being done at the Shipyard SB and they could make 2 additional regular conversions at the other SB?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 11:56 pm: Edit

I believe the 4+ pt conversions are done at the starbase(s), but because of the location of the shipyard the logistics is easier to account for the larger amount of materials needed for the major conversion(s).

With (450.1) you can build another major conversion facility in a different location either at a starbase or major planet.
By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Wednesday, July 08, 2009 - 12:01 am: Edit

If the 2 non Shipyard SBs are destroyed in the Klink/Fed Capital, what number and type of conversions could then be done?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, July 08, 2009 - 12:22 am: Edit

Any questions will be answered after the 20th of this month as I am on vacation with family and do not have all my materials with me.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Wednesday, July 08, 2009 - 07:47 am: Edit

Mike, this is off topic, but you should where your Klingon outfit one day on vacation...not sure where you're going, but it could be for good talk. Have fun and be safe!!!
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, July 08, 2009 - 10:39 am: Edit

Dave, I am currently in California, Sacramento, to be specific and LtCmdr Kurtis did not make the trip. He is at home guarding the house...
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Yep, FEAR is up in Sac. Spent a day with Tim and I over bbq and a board game. Good times were had, laughter was experienced, and barking spiders made their presence known!
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 09:34 pm: Edit

Hi everyone.

I am playing my first every F&E game with Bill Carroll who is also playing his first game. We have some questions which we hope someone can answer.

The first involves crippled ships in a capital assault. We don’t quite understand rule 511.53 (Step 3 of a capital assault) and how it applies to crippled ships. What happens to a ship that is crippled during a battle in a capital assault? The rule states that the cripples get added to the crippled ship pools which are created by step 3, but the only crippled ship pools I see mentioned in the rules are the ones created by Step 2. Do the crippled ships join those crippled ships pools created by step 2? Are they then stuck in the system in which they are crippled, even if they were in the mobile force? Can the attacker then direct damage them via 511.573 like it can with the crippled ship groups created in Step 2?

The second is for direct damaging crippled ships in the pursuit battle. The way we understand the rule is that damage caused by the pursuer can be directed on cripples at a 1:1 ratio, just like maulers, and the pursuer can direct damage as many cripples as they want to. The attacker does not actually have to have a mauler in his fleet to do this, and there is no limit on the amount of damage which can be applied at 1:1. Is this correct?

The last question is a wording issue around direct damaging PDUs. Does it take 10 points of damage to direct damage a battalion without a mauler and 5 points from a mauler (if one is present in the battle)? If the defender voluntarily destroys a battalion it only counts for 3 points?

Thanks for any information.

Paul
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 10:25 pm: Edit

Paul, the steps for the capital assualt are repeated in order after each combat round.

You fight one round at each system udner attack. At the conclussion of that round, you then decide if either side retreats. If not you start with step 1 again.

Any ships crippled in the previous round are then added to the crippled ship pool.

Repeat as needed until one or both sides retreat.

As to the PDU's I believe it to be 5 pts with a mauler and 10 wihtout a mauler. I have always used 3 for self kills. but that's rarely.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 10:31 pm: Edit

Hey Paul...as you have experienced, the English language can be the first barrier to understanding the rules...

#1-when dividing forces at the beginning, any crippled ships that exist prior to any combat (or after approach battles), must be placed in systems(planet with most PDUs via 511.573) as static forces. This is part of step 2. As battle is fought, if a ship becomes crippled, it becomes a static force of that particular system it was crippled in (even if it WAS a mobile unit). And yes, they can be directed on if not in the force.

2-In pursuit, if there are, say, 4 crippled ships, you may direct on all four of them provided you have done enough damage to get them all...this serves as your 'one directed damage' (basically being able to get multiple targets). It is NOT 1:1..it is 2:1 as normal, however, you may use a mauler and get the appropriate number of mauler points to reduce the required damage to do so. 307.4 is worded a little vague and can lead to you think you do not need a mauler. But a mauler does give you a capture adjustment on any capture roll.

3-10 pts to DD a PDU; 5 pts to maul; 3 voluntary. This does not include ftrs. So, if you do 30 pts and have a D6M, you can destroy 4 PDUs, but you'll have 28 minus pts next round for the fighters...unless of course they have a home they can go to.

Sorry, Mike, I know you're on vacation and I was bored tonight. Hope I didn't miss anything.
By Graham Stewart Wardle (Tasmerlin) on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 09:51 am: Edit

Can anyone please advise me where rule 445 (Fighter Storage Depots or Modules?) can be found? Been looking at the latest SITS and seen lots of references but after searching CL's 18-38 and all the modules, and done searches I can't find it anywhere! Am now going to bed as its 11.52pm here in Australia, Cheers, Graham.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 10:02 am: Edit

That rule is in Fighter Operations.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 12:21 pm: Edit

I've already posted SITS update request for the rule change for 443 to 445 for the FTR Storage Depots for all races.
By Graham Stewart Wardle (Tasmerlin) on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Thanks Matthew and Thomas. Found it! Didn't realise that it was out of order (between rule 319.0 and 607.0) and not in the table of contents on the front page. It was your posts on the SITS, Thomas, that started this off in the first place. Perhaps another reason why the Warbook should be done?
By Peter Bonfanti (Otherbonfanti) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Two-part question for FEAR when he returns:

At the start of AT7, a Hydran fleet in Lyran space is out of supply. The Hydrans use the supply tug to supply 20 ships.
During combat, this fleet re-establishes a supply path to the off-map area; however, the path is cut off after combat, and no path exists at any point during CT8. Did the tug replenish its supplies, so the fleet is now back in supply? Or does it have to re-establish a path after the first turn of supplies are used up?

Meanwhile, this fleet has cut off the Lyran supply route into the former Hydran Capital. The Klingons, however, have a valid supply path, as well as both PDUs and a BATS at the capital. Are the Lyrans thus magically in supply, by 410.4, since they're with a friendly base?

Thanks
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Regarding the rule about planets rebelling and generating an RDF despite the presence of a garrison:

-does a planet in rebellion still serve as a supply and retrograde point for the conquering side?

-does the presence of the RDF mandate that a combat be fought there during the ensuing original-owning side's combat phase, or does the RDF simply sit quietly if no original-owning side units show up?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 07:32 am: Edit

Todd, I can answer half that question.

The planet only does not generate income. The rule states that quite clearly (537.131).

For the second part, it is my belief that it creates a combat hex, but the RDF can only be "killed" by G units (537.131).
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 07:08 am: Edit

I have a question about Annexing provinces/planets (448.2) and the CoE (541.0).

By 448.2, it takes 10 turns to annex a province (448.21), and once you annex the province you also annex any planets in that province (448.28). However, under the CoE rules, section 541.34C states: "each entire turn that an engineer regiment spends at a planet captured by the owner of the regiment counts as two turns for long-term capture and/or annexation of that planet and the entire province it is in. This does not count for a multi-planet hex and cannot be combined with other things (e.g. hospital ships, diplomats) that have the same effect."

By this it seems that the CoE rules setup a new method for annexing a planet and province. It could be argued that the more specific rule (CoE) would override the rules in 448.2 for annexing planets/provinces IF a CoE is present.

Also, 541.34C makes reference to Hospital Ships and Diplomats and how they can do the same thing as a CoE, but by the rules they cannot. Was this statement perhaps a mistake or oversight (maybe the rules for Hospital Ships/Diplomats at one time had a similiar function to the CoE for captured planets?)?

The problem I see here is that with a CoE over a captured planet, it is now possible to long-term capture the province after 2 turns instead of four, and annex the province after 10 turns. Take the situation where a CoE is over the captured Hydran planet 519. Five turns later the province is annexed, meaning that all of the planets in 617 have just been annexed as well, even if never captured. This does not seem to be the intended result by using a CoE, but it looks legal on the surface.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 09:22 am: Edit

A question about Supply Grids (413.0):

By the definition (413.1), a Supply Grid is a network of bases/planets that contains a friendly Capital hex or Off-Map area. Also by definition a Partial Supply Grid (413.4) is any other Grid that does not contain the Capital or Off-Map area.

My situation is this. The Federation's supply path has been cut off from the Capital in 2908 to the Off-Map area. However, by the definition the Off-Map area is not a Partial Supply Grid, but in fact is a Supply Grid. If I have EPs stockpiled up at the Off-Map Starbase, when do those funds become available to the Treasury? 413.44 very specifically talks about when a Partial Supply Grid can send it's supplies back to the Main Grid (which in the rules is not defined).

Since by definition the Off-Map Supply Grid and the Capital Supply Grid are functionally the same, would any EPs generated by the Off-Map area transfer back to the Treasury the moment a Suppty Route (411.0) is re-established? Or would the Off-Map Supply Grid use the same rules as a Partial Supply Grid? And finally can the Off-Map Supply Grid use Defecit Spending, since it is not in effect a Partial Supply Grid?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 10:25 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Take the situation where a CoE is over the captured Hydran planet 519. Five turns later the province is annexed, meaning that all of the planets in 617 have just been annexed as well, even if never captured.
________________________________________
Rob's assumption is that annexing planets and provinces *must* go hand in hand. By the plain language of the rules, that is not the case.

First, the quoted conclusion is not what 541.34C says. What it says is that the planet *the COE is on* (519) is annexed more quickly - and also the province it is in. Thus, 617 would not be captured at all by the method in 541.34C. Instead, 617 would remain in Hydran hands and would automatically disrupt the now Klingon province (and, obviously, 519 would be annexed).

448 is simply different. 448 says that if you hold the province for the required time, you get teh province and planets in it (which would have had to have been captured).

So, the two rules are different and have different effects. Nothing in 541.34C would create an auto-capture situation of a homeworld (which would require 20 turns to annex, anyway).

Now, 541 might have an unintended effect, but if you diagram the sentence you will see that it says you can annex a captured planet and the province it is in more quickly - not other planets in the same province.

If you want to *errata* 541 in order to make provinces and planets be annexed together all the time, then go for it - but the rule as written is crystal clear.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 11:29 am: Edit

Typo on my part there, I meant to say 10 turns later (to account for the province being a "capital province").

What I think Ted is ignoring is the fact that if it works the way he says it does, in the example, 519 and the province would be annexed after 10 turns. But now it's impossible for 617 to ever be annexed.

Also, the 541 rule for the CoE only says that planet and the province, but it has no provision for the case if there are other planets in the same province. I feel in that case you have to go back to the original enabling rule, 448.2, in order to figure out what happens to the rest of the planets.

I also believe it is important to keep in mind that 448.2 is the original enabling rule and that the Corp of Engineers rules came afterwards. Personally I believe it is an error in the rule, and that the intent of the rule to to simply shorten the time to annex the province that the planet is in, not to create an ambiguous situation that we have now.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 03:12 pm: Edit

I actually don't disupte that there is very likely an unintended consequence. However, the rule *as written* is clear - whether it is good or not, or should be changed with erratta, is another matter.

This would be a wonderful issue to resolve for the new rulebook.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, July 18, 2009 - 12:18 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
But now it's impossible for 617 to ever be annexed.
________________________________________
After some thought this is true. 448 won't work because you've already annexed the province. 541 won't work because COEs can't be used in a capital hex.

Another problem:
There's another problem with 541 that needs fixing. If you hold the *planet* with the COE on it for the required time, and if Rob is right, then all of the work the COE had done will be unmade (or slowed down) if even a single POL is slipped into the disputed province (pretty easy to do, really, since POLs can appear anywhere in supply). If that is the case, then the COE is useless in this role (or its usefulness is greatly diminished). That's why I thought that the province was tied to the planet in 541, vice the planet tied to the province in 448.

In a prior discussion between Rob and myself, he pointed out that the COE is not useless, because you just need to keep an enemy ship out for two turns for long-term capture, after which an enemy slipping in will only slow the process of annexation. (With the COE, the process will slow to the equivalent rate of 1 turn per 1 turn).

However, the problem with this theory is that you will never *get* those two turns. It's pretty likely the Hydrans (or Zin, or even Fed) will get *something* into that province before those two turns pass. Perhaps not, but I speculate that if the rule is changed from its actual working, then this function of the COE will be used quite infrequently.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 09:43 am: Edit

Mike,

This question is regarding base upgrades in the SoP (105.0) from Planetary Operations:

A Mobile Base or larger base is upgraded to the next larger base on turn x. When does the completion of the upgrade occur?

The following rule is partially quoted to include relavent information

(433.41)B. During the time it is being upgraded, the base has the original factors. If crippled during this turn, the upgrade is completed after the combat phase and then the base is crippled (based on the upgraded factors)


However, I can not find anything regarding a base that is not attacked at all or is attacked but not crippled.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 10:02 am: Edit

Thomas, unless I'm misunderstanding you, my version of the SoP states that base upgrades are completed in step 2B3, which is after repairs (including base repairs) and before conversions. So, if you initiate an upgrade on Player Turn 1 (game turn 1), the base will complete its upgrade at step 2B3 of Player Turn 3 (game turn 2). (Player Turn 2 being the intervening, opponent's player turn).

Which can lead to an odd situation in which a newly constructed SB can convert a unit in its hex, but not repair any cripples in its hex (at least, not until combat using rapid repair).
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 10:12 am: Edit

Thanks Ted.

I just missed it. Although if the base is a BATS then it could repair upto 4 pts of units, while a Sector Base could repair upto 6 pts of units.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 - 09:02 am: Edit

(312.12) states that a Tug or LTT must be used to install each SFG on a starbase.

Can I use a F5T or E4T to install each SFG on a starbase subject to limits of (312.112)?

There is no mention of this in (529.7). However a single SFG can be installed on a D5 converting it to a D5A. Therefore the SFG device would be small enough that the F5T and probably the E4T would be large enough to carry the unit and manuever it into place to be installed on the starbase.
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 - 12:26 pm: Edit

Hi everyone. I have a few more questions I hope I can get answers for.

The first covers taking damage with SIDS. If, after damage allocation, there are enough points left over which are equal to 1/2 of a SIDS step does the defender have to take a SIDS step or can he take them as plus points? In my last game I ran into situation where there was a starbase that already had 4 SIDS and I scored 17 points of damage. There were no remaining fighters or ships in the battle, just the SB. Did the SB have to take 4 more SIDS for 18 points of damage and 1 minus point and cripple the SB, or could it have taken 3 SIDS and 4 plus points? In the past my playing partner and I have also run across a similar issue with 11 points being scored on an unclipped BATS.

We are currently setting up to play Gale Force sector D. Can the MBs provided in the setup for each side be deployed at the start of the scenario or must they be un-deployed?

Thanks
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Paul, The MBs provided in the setup for any given scenario are undeployed unless otherwise stated in the rules to the specific scenario in question. I know I've read that as an official answer, I believe it to be in the Q&A archives somewhere, I just can't find it at the moment. Maybe one of the resident geniuses can tell you exactly where to find it.
By Peter Bonfanti (Otherbonfanti) on Thursday, August 06, 2009 - 02:53 pm: Edit

I'm tremendously embarassed that I don't know this, but can't find the answer in the rules, errata, or archives:
The ten points to devastate a planet is really twenty unless you have a mauler, correct?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, August 06, 2009 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Nope, devestation is 10 pts no matter what.
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Thursday, August 06, 2009 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Crap, been playing that wrong as well for years.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, August 06, 2009 - 11:47 pm: Edit

Sorry, Ryan, I don't see that.

(508.21) "The 10 points can be scored by directed damage."
(302.52) The Attacking Player then deducts from his Damage Points a number equal to double the defense factor of the selected unit. (This establishes the ratio of two actual to one effective Damage Points used by Directed Damage)
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Friday, August 07, 2009 - 12:24 am: Edit

Technically Paul, each SIDS on a SB is worth 4.5 if I'm recalling that correctly. Some people play, kill the first SIDs for 5, then the 2nd for 4; and keep track that way. So, depending on which one you're on, plus pts could go over or not. That's why most situations people kill two at a time for nine and don't mess with that.
So, I would say you could possibly carry them over. But the SIDs on a BATS are definitely 4, so no luck there...gotta take one.

Please verify with someone smarter than me, like say, Mike C, before toting that opinion around as gospel...but I'm pretty sure I'm correct.
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Saturday, August 08, 2009 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Ok time for a retreat question which is going to come up in my game today which I don't quite know the answer to.

We are playing Gale Force sector D only and my SB in 2808 and my capital are going to be attacked this turn. If we fight the 2808 battle first, and I eventually retreat, can I retreat into the capital or do I have to choose one of the other surrounding hexes (assuming those hexes are in supply)?

What is confusing me is retreat step 2 and step 4. Step 2 says I don’t have to eliminate hexes where I will outnumber my opponent (which I probably will in the capital), and step 4 says I can’t retreat into hexes with enemy units. The paragraph before the retreat steps says the lower number steps override the higher number steps if there is a conflict. Does this mean I can retreat into the capital? If not then what is the point of retreat rule 2 if I can never retreat into a hex with enemy units.

Thanks

Paul
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Saturday, August 08, 2009 - 01:04 pm: Edit

Paul,

Each of steps 2 to 4 remove possible hexes (unless that step would remove all remaining hexes, in which case it is ignored).

So...

Step 1
All 6 possible hexes are available.

Step 2
Eliminate all hexes where your retreating units (plus friendly units already in the hex) would be outnumbered by enemy units. (i) If, as you suspect, you outnumber the enemy in your capital then that hex remains available; (ii) if they outnumber you then your capital hex is crossed off the list (and you will HAVE to retreat somewhere else) leaving only 5 other possible retreat hexes; if (somehow) the enemy outnumbered you in ALL of the 6 surrounding hexes then ignore this step (all 6 hexes remain available!).

Step 3
Remove all hexes that do not give you the shortest distance to a supply point. This removes all but the capital hex and the planet at 2708 (unless it has fallen) which both have a supply distance of zero. If you crossed-off the capital in step two then that just leaves 2708! If the planet is gone too then you will need to find the next nearest supply point.

Step 4
Of the hexes remaining (which are probably just 2908 & 2708) eliminate any that contain enemy units (unless they all do). This will elminate the capital, and will probably just leave you with 2708 (technically you could do a Fighting Retreat into the capital but that would be racial suicide =:-O). IF there are also enemy units in 2709 then ignore this step (as it would otherwise elminate all hexes) and take your choice of either.

So, oddly enough, it all depends on whether 2708 still stands (and whether or not it contains enemy units)!
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Saturday, August 08, 2009 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Thanks for the great reply Peter!

2 follow ups. 2708 is outside of the senario map as its part of sector c. Does this eliminate it from contention for retreat? I don't want to lose my ships by going off of the map.

If 2708 is not in play would I have to use the next closest supply point, which would be the sb in 2907, for step 3? Would that make 2807 the retreat hex then if there are no Klingons there?
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Sunday, August 09, 2009 - 01:11 am: Edit

Thanks for the great reply Peter!

You're welcome.

2 follow ups.

If 2708 is not in play would I have to use the next closest supply point, which would be the sb in 2907, for step 3? Would that make 2807 the retreat hex then if there are no Klingons there?

No, you find the closest supply point (which is the capital as it has supply range 0). So only the capital would be a valid retreat.

2708 is outside of the senario map as its part of sector c. Does this eliminate it from contention for retreat? I don't want to lose my ships by going off of the map.

Tricky question!

Without looking at rules I would assume that anything off the scenario map would be ignored, so you'd have to retreat to the capital hex. HOWEVER, looking at the Carrier War rules (I don't have the more recent Fighter Operations) things become more problematic.

From CW, IF you are also simultaneously playing sector C then it IS included.

If not, then it says that units can't move out of the sector (but then says that if they retreat out of the sector they can't come back). And supply CAN be drawn from other sectors.

Which on the surface SEEMS to imply that you'd be forced to retreat your units out of the sector! That doesn't seem very kosher to me!

Have a search through the Q&A archives (I've already tried 608.48 and "Sector Boundaries" without success but you might be able to find something if you look hard). Otherwise you'll need an official ruling on this one (unless someone else has a later module that clarifies this Sector retreat issue and feels inclined to post it).

If you can't get that in time then I'd personally suggest treating out-of-sector as voluntary only (but remember that that is only MY uneducated opinion).
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 09, 2009 - 08:33 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
(608.48) Sector Boundraries: Units which move [except by (608.46)] or retreat out of their sector are not destroyed, but are irrevocably transferred to the other sector.
________________________________________


That's what the rule says regarding retreating out of sector in fighter ops. You can trace supply out of the sector without penalty. I'd definately wait for a more official response from FEAR. But under the wording of the above you can if you want, but then the ships are no longer available for your use in the next phase.
By Peter Bonfanti (Otherbonfanti) on Monday, August 10, 2009 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Does anyone know the definitive answer to my devastation question posted above (on 8/6)? This seems like such a basic thing that there must be an answer somewhere (even if I can't find it).
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Monday, August 10, 2009 - 01:47 pm: Edit

I looked, and realized I could only offer my opinion.

I searched the Q&A archives for likely hits, and all I could find was that you can't voluntarily take *another* 10 points of damage on an already devestated planet.

I can't find that question ever asked. It may be that it's simply rare for one player to attack a planet, fight long enough to destroy the PDU, and wish to devestate the planet without also having the forces to take the planet.

So, what I have seen is that planetary damage is scored either by the defender before he runs away, by the attacker after the defender runs away, or not at all.

My personal opinion, after reading the rules, is that it takes 20 damage without a mauler. (Which, incidentally is contrary to what I had always assumed.)
By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, August 10, 2009 - 09:33 pm: Edit

I have always played it as simply requiring 10 points to devastate the planet regardless of Mauler use, because that is how the rule reads to me.

Im going by the Deluxe rulebook and using Errata, so its possible the 2K rulebook reads differently.

The Deluxe rule just says "and an additional 10 points of damage" with no mention of directing. Though in the Note there is a mention of directing for the purpose of devastating without taking control.
By John Doucette (Pbi) on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 03:35 pm: Edit

We've always played as normal damage rules; i.e. directing on the planet as if it was a ship/unit. This means 20 pts without a mauler, more or less what Jeff said

As an aside, the tactic of going in to devestate a planet and then buggering off at high rate of speed is incredibly common in my games
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 10:59 pm: Edit

When calling up a police ship in response to a raid, may the police respond to the call if the hex of the raid is not supply from the main supply grid - which is a condition for calling up police ships in at least some circumstances?
By Bill Carroll (Peewee) on Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 09:37 am: Edit

Got a pursuit rule question. Can a crippled ship for the defender be placed in the formation bonus position during a pursuit battle? We couldn't find anywhere that said no so we went ahead and did it and thought we'd ask on the bbs. Thanks in advance!!
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 09:40 am: Edit

Bill, yes.

But only one ship can be in the formation bonus for each battle line.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 09:41 am: Edit

Todd, I don't have my books with me, but I'm pretty positive the answer is No.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 09:55 am: Edit

[Resubmitted for clarity on 8/18. Original post deleted by author's request. Molasses cookies and brownies left for FEAR in its place. -- J. Sexton]

Yummmy, Cookies! FEAR
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 10:02 am: Edit

307.4 is the enabling rule for use of the formation bonus in pursuit battles: right after the statement that free scouts, drone bombardment, and command points cannot be used.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 12:25 pm: Edit

Thomas,

IIRC, you can put the D7U in the scout box for forming the reserve fleet, (but not a battle force). The reserve fleet sees the D7U as a individual ship not as part of a carrier group at this point.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 08:26 pm: Edit

More information for Todd's question:
By 314.243:

"If no units are within range to react, or the player decides not to use them for this purpose, the player who owns the Raid Target Hex may temporally call up one police ship to fight the raiding ship. Police ships cannot be called up in captured territory unless it meets the conditions for long term capture."

There are no other criteria for calling up the POL to fight a raider, and the only thing listed in that rule for when you cannot call up the POL is about captured territory.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 12:15 pm: Edit

Two questions regarding Prime Teams (534.0)

1. Does a Prime Team on defense (534.3) take up a slot under (534.11)? There is no mention of them taking up a E&S raid slot for defensive operations.

2. Does a Prime Team on defense (534.3) cost the 2 EP each turn under (534.13)? There is no mention of defensive missions costing EPs.
By John Doucette (Pbi) on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 11:36 am: Edit

On using the D7U for the reserve scout, the free scout in the reserve fleet cannot be used for anything but scouting. So, unfortunately, you can't use the free scout provision to get a carrier you otherwise wouldn't be able to get to the battle.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 11:55 am: Edit

John,

We need to be careful in FEAR's topic.

I think you're wrong, since rules do allow a scout-carrier to be the "free scout" in a battle, as long as it's not escorted. Most people would never risk a D7U in such a role, but since the reserve fleet doesn't actually have to fight in that configuration when it shows up, it appears legal. (And of course, including the escorts as "normal ships" in the battle force is also legal.)

But I can't point to a black-and-white rule on the issue, so we should defer and let Mike handle it.
By John Doucette (Pbi) on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 11:57 am: Edit

I thought there had been a ruling on this a few years back... Or maybe I just think there had been Ah well, if there is, he'll find/remember it and if not, another important question will be answered.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 02:28 am: Edit

JD:

Please cite where a carrier-scout cannot serve as a scout in a reserve fleet is in the rulebook. If you don't back up your statements with a rule number I'd ask that you please keep your opinions to yourself and allow Mike to officially answer the question.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 07:09 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Reserve Fleets (507.2) can have a number of ships equal to the command rating of highest ship in the hex. i.e. a DN commands 10, so the fleet would be the DN + 10 ships, + free scout.
The addition of battle groups and CVBGs have increased this number.

My question is that I have a Klingon C8 commanding a mixed fleet that included a Klingon D7U+AD5+F5E. The D7U is the only scout capable ship in the hex at the point of reserve fleet formation under (105.P) 9A. Can I use the D7U as the free scout so I can include the Lyran STT in the hex as well?
________________________________________


The above is resubmitted for clarity. The original question should be removed by our wonderful Webmom.
By John Doucette (Pbi) on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 07:52 am: Edit

Chuck,

Just for clarity, I never said a carrier-scout could not be included.
By Bill Carroll (Peewee) on Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 07:07 pm: Edit

Hi everyone,

Wonder if someone has the answer to a question I can't seem to find about Klingon tugs. Can the Klingon CVT and CVT+ carry an additional pod or are they considered to already be carrying their pod with the base unit? I believe I have seen the answer but can't seem to find it now. Thanks.

Bill
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 10:35 pm: Edit

Bill Carroll:

Wonder if someone has the answer to a question I can't seem to find about Klingon tugs. Can the Klingon CVT and CVT+ carry an additional pod or are they considered to already be carrying their pod with the base unit? I believe I have seen the answer but can't seem to find it now. Thanks.

The Klingon starting CVT and the upgraded CVT into CVT+ are tugs with 2xVP2 or 2xVP3 pods hard welded in place already. As such they really are not tugs at all but true carriers and cannot handle any more pods.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 10:44 pm: Edit

Deleted, as Mike answered before I had a chance to actually post the answer.
By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Friday, August 21, 2009 - 10:21 pm: Edit

Was there an answer to the question on the 10 points of damage required to devastate a planet?

Is it 10 if using a Mauler, or self assigned... or 20 if without a Mauler?
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 03:00 pm: Edit

What happens if both sides do a fighting retreat from the same battle into the same hex?
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 10:16 pm: Edit

I have an economic question.

We are about to play Sector D from Winds of Fire from AO. The rules for Sector D state that the Klingons get 54 ep from the General Treasury. How do we determine how much of that comes from planets so we can calculate the 40% xtp bonus that planets generate? We are not sure how much is planets and how much is provinces.

The rules state that the Feds get 31 ep from the Capital so we are assuming that all of that is from planets. Is this correct?

Thanks,

Paul
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 05:36 pm: Edit

As a follow up. We are also confused about the Klingon neutral zone hexes.

Sector D says the Klingons get all neutral zones from sectors A,B,C, and D - but then says this is 2.3 points. The total of all of those sectors is 8.4 with the minor planets. Sectors A,B, and C also say they get the neutral zone hexes in their income. If we are just playing sector D how much neutral zone money should the klingons get?

Paul
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Is there a limit on the number of xships which can be produced by substation each turn? I see a rule on conversions and overbuilds, but nothing on substation limits for xships.

Paul
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 06:15 am: Edit

William,

If both sides retreat from a battle hex into the same retreat hex, it would only be a fighting retreat for the attacker, since the defender retreats first. This is of course assuming both sides are the exact same size shipcount wise (or the attacker is bigger), otherwise the attacker would not be able to enter the hex at all.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 07:40 am: Edit

Robert

In this case - the defender could only enter the required hex under a fighting retreat (Hex A and B are both equally valid for shortest supply etc - but hex B already has enemy forces in it).

Defender Retreats into Hex B - so fighting retreat.

Attacker also retreats in Hex B (as Hex B and C are equally valid) - so also a fighting retreat.

We agreed both sides on BIR 0 was most appropriate...but William decided for strategic reasons - he didn't want to retreat anyway!
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 10:13 am: Edit

Mike in my search for cross references for the 2010 rule book I found these 2 oddities.

1. Sector Bases (452.12) can repair 6 points each turn. However there is no mention of how many repair points an X-Sector Base can repair each turn.

2. Base Stations (444.33) It has been decided to allow X-Base Stations. Such a unit is 16(6)scout/8(3)scout. Conversion costs are on the Master SITS on-line. The unit requires four SIDS steps to cripple and it requires two SIDS steps to destroy a crippled BSX. The EW ratings are:
EWF 1 2 3
ATTACK: 16 9 3
ATTACK (Drone): 16 9 6
ATTACK (Crippled): 8 3 NA
ATTACK (Crip-Drn): 8 5 NA

My question for both is what is the repair capacity for the X-Versions of the Sector Base and Base Station. The X-Versions of Starbases and Battle Stations have increased repair capacity listed in (523.42).
Additional Information regarding repairs by X-Bases.
Starbases repair 16 pts while X-Starbases repair 24 pts, a 50% increase in capacity
BATS repair 4 pts while X-BATS repair 6 pts, a 50% increase in capacity.
FRDs repair 12 pts while FRXs repair 18 pts, a 50% increase in capacity.

Mike, this question is restated and combined from two earlier, and now deleted, posts. -- Jean
By Bill Carroll (Peewee) on Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Hi everyone,

2 questions that my playing parter and I can't seem to find the answers to. First is about transferring free fighter factors to free pf factors. He's seen it somewhere and and I can't find it anywhere. Can we and how do we convert free fighter factors to free pf factors?

Second question is on klingon stasis versus carrier groups. If the klingon freezes the smallest escort can he then target next smaller escort in carrier battle group for freezing and continue up the line? And if two stasis ships are present can they continue targeting ships in cvbg, smallest to largest? Or is 1 escort per round the only option and they would be forced to target other ships until the following battle round? Thanks in advance.

Bill
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Question 1. Free fighters for PFs is rule 442.21.

Question 2. See 312.27 for the answer. Which is no you can't work your up the escorts.
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Does the production of X-Ships count as either a substitution or conversion against your limits each turn, or can you produce as many xships as you can afford and there are base hulls in the turns production?

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 02:16 pm: Edit

September - October 2009 Archive

By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 05:15 am: Edit

A question re EW and Bases...

(F&E) Special Operations offers a trade-off between SB/BATS Attack Factor and EW, *presumably* because of "blinding" of sensor channels due to weapon fire (note that the drone races suffer a reduced effect).

(SFB) G24.135 states that Bases are *immune* to sensor blinding due to weapon fire.

This seems contradictory!

Is it because:
(a) SO is out-of-date and CO/AO removed base blinding or
(b) SFB Silver Anniversary Edition is out-of-date and some newer version of SFB has recinded G24.135 or
(c) F&E chose base sensor blinding for game balance reasons even though it contradicts SFB or
(d) There is a mistake somewhere.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 09:28 am: Edit

Question for FEAR, based on following quote:
________________________________________
Quote:
Ted Fay,

It was ruled that older survey ships cannot be built or converted once the newer survey ships are allowed for production. While I disagree with this ruling, it was the last ruling on Survey Ship production. You should check with F.E.A.R. to see if that has changes allowing older survey ship conversion or your term paper is invalid.
________________________________________


Is this so? I wrote a tac note proposing that a good use for crippled WEs was to convert them cheaply into PEs and then use them for survey (within all relevant limits). Is this tactic illegal? If so, I need to re-write my tac note.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 10:07 am: Edit

Peter,

I'll let FEAR give the official answer, but to my recollection, G24.135 was a more recent SFB rule, written after the F&E EW rules for bases.

The F&E guys thought it over, and (I think) decided to keep with the current EW rules for balance purposes, though I do remember a note in a CapLog on how bases would operate if they had changed it. (Full attack rating, full EW, all the time.)

In essense, we decided we like our rules better than SFB. Though we're generally schizoid, and may have changed our minds on this and I wouldn't even know it anymore. (I don't have all the rules updates, so I have a gap in my knowledge base.)

So like I said, I'll let FEAR give the official answer.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 10:13 am: Edit

Paul, regarding X-ships:

Again, I'm not the FEAR, but in case he might be busy for a bit, I'll give as best an answer as I can. Plus, I'm not sure what you were asking, but...

You can produce as many X-ships as your production schedule will allow, plus convert as many more as you have SBX, until your supply of XTP runs out.

So the Feds, for example, could produce 2 CX cruisers per turn, 3 if they chose to skip DN production. They could then also convert a CA to CX in each SBX they have. They could then build DDX (in place of NCL), for... what is it, 12 of them per turn? And then another 12 FFX per turn.

They don't got the money for that, but it *IS* possible by their production schedule.

*~*

Anyway, sorry Mike for intruding, he had asked that twice and you were away. Please confirm this or otherwise tell me how screwed up I got it?
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 10:35 am: Edit

Thanks Kevin - that was exactly what we were wondering. We were not sure if producing x-ships counts against the 2 substitutions per turn limit for the feds or not.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 11:16 am: Edit

Thanks Kevin. That sounds about right (I notice the 1991 SFB rules don't have it but the 2004 SFB rules do).
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 11:27 am: Edit

There is at least one argument for bases not getting full attack value and full EW in F&E, despite G24.135 (no sensor blinding) - POWER. In SFB, you won't have the power to arm those energy expensive ph-4s *and* maximize lent EW. That's why F&E provide for power modules that *do* allow you to have full attack and full EW on bases.

If you wanted to reconcile G24.135 with F&E, you might reduce the *rate* at which attack factors go down for dialing up EW on bases - but the principle still applies. e.g., SBs lose only 4 compot per EW dialed, or somesuch.

More likely, nothing will change because F&E is a different game.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 02:55 pm: Edit

A good try, but it doesn't explain why the Kzinti (and Fed/Kli) don't suffer the same EW cut off point as other races.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Yes it does. They have drones, which don't use as much power.

I remember Ted's point now, when we were discussing it long ago. That was part of the reasoning - that the lack of power means either EW or weapons, not both. And that's backed up by the power modules rule. Thanks Ted for bringing that up.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 03:08 pm: Edit

What Kevin said about drones.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 09:15 pm: Edit

Peter, it is as Ted says, the reasoning behind the variable AF output, the power requirements.

Notice in AO that the Power Module becomes available in Y178. (441.5) This allows a base to use it's full AF w/ full EW power.

Not that I'm am F.E.A.R...


By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 12:12 am: Edit

ok mauler vs carrier escort question.

I have an x-ship that wants to use it's mauler effect vs a FWE in order to destroy it. My playing partner and I are debating how much damage it takes to kill the FWE because of the escort bonus (which is 4 in this case).

Normally it takes (2x6)+4 = 16 points to cripple and another (2x3) = 6 to destroy.

Do I have to use up all 10 mauler points to cripple the FWE (6+4) and then use 6 more to destroy it (3x2), or do I use 6 mauler points + 4 regular damage points to cripple and then 3 more mauler points to destroy it?

One way costs 16 points of total damage and the other costs 13.

What is confusing us is how to handle the +4 for escort bonus. The rules state that mauler damage does not reduce it, but can I use normal damage on it to save my mauler damage for destroying the ship.

Paul
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 10:08 pm: Edit

I have an Xtp and in turn costs question.

Say I have 0 eps and 5 xtps at the end of my production. Then during my turn I fire some drones and do field repairs which cost a total of 3 eps. Do I have to pay for it from the xtps I have or can I use deficit spending and go to -3 eps and save my xtps?
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 10:59 pm: Edit

Paul,

For your second question, you may want to look here. "Search on page" for XTP and you'll find a previous Q&A on the same exact question.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, September 06, 2009 - 01:10 pm: Edit

When upgrading an Operational Base (453.0) with an Engineer Unit (541.0) is the next step a Base Station (444.0) or a Battle Station?

I believe the next upgrade step for an Op Base is directly to a BATS based on the following.

Both Op Bases (453.33) and Base Stations (444.14) have the same EW ratings.
Both Op Bases (453.32)and Base Stations (444.12)have the same repair capacity of 2 points.

If the next step is a Battle Station then what is the cost? I believe it be the same as upgrading a Base Station to a BATS based on the above information.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, September 06, 2009 - 01:18 pm: Edit

See 453.13 which gives the upgrade cost of an OPB to either a BS or BATS the same cost as the upgrade from an MB.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 - 11:55 am: Edit

Question:

If one force is entirely destroyed in ESSC, who gets the salvage?

Here Chuck states that "salvage no longer goes to the victor."

On May 12th in the Q&A topic, FEAR "answered" (as opposed to "ruled") that "salvage goes to the victor" now only applies to the Orions.

In CL39, we read "(439.16) This rule includes this statement: “Ships destroyed after single-combat [(310.0) or (504.4)] count as salvage for the winning ship if it would otherwise qualify (in supply, not adopted or expedition, etc.).” This is a fairly old rule. Since ESSC (323.0) replaced (310.0), the reference in this rule to (310.0) should be interpreted as applying to (323.0)."

CL39 is more recent than Chuck's statement, and more recent than FEAR's clarification.

------------------------------------------------

So, now I'm totally confused. Was CL39 in error? Or is there something that I missed?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, September 09, 2009 - 11:26 am: Edit

(445.11) States that a starbase can have 2 Fighter Storage Depots, and a BATS can have one. How many can a Base Station (440.0) have?

additional information:
(444.12) states that a base station can repair two points per turn until Y170 and is then increased by repair modules (a future rule) to three points in Y171.
By Peter Bonfanti (Otherbonfanti) on Friday, September 11, 2009 - 03:28 pm: Edit

FEAR, any chance you can answer my devastation question from a while back, i.e. does it take ten or twenty points without a mauler?

Thanks.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 12:26 pm: Edit

(425.31) lists the amount of damage that can be repaired in combat by Battle Stations, Starbases, FRDs and PRDs. What are the amouns of damage that can be reapired by Base Stations (444.0), Sector Bases (452.0) and Operational Bases (453.0) if any?

FEAR, this question and most of my preceeding questions arise from doing cross references for the 2010 rules. SVC replied that references to the expansions should be posted in the war book section. This question and several others can affect the current games I'm playing as well help ensure the warbook has specifics to limit future questions.

Thanks in advance for you hard work and answers.
By Bill Carroll (Peewee) on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 09:16 am: Edit

Hi,

Wonder if someone can help me out with a Prime Team Defense question. When used on defense against sabotage and espionage as per 534.3 it appears the assignment of the pt on defense can be made after the attacker designates his targets for espionage and sabotage. Is this correct and can the attacker then abort his attack? And if the prime team is used in defense during the raid phase can it then perform another function later on in the turn for example, commando during the combat phase? Thanks.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Bill,

I believe Prime Teams are supposed to be assigned to a specific ship (522.3) or mission (534.0). According to the SOP (105.P) Prime Teams are assigned Defensive Missions in step 2B7 (reference (537.3) Prime Teams for defense). Espionage and Sabotage is conducted in step 3A-1B of the SOP. So you should all ready know if he has a Prime Team on a Defensive Mission when you make your decision to conduct an E&S mission.

That said, a Prime Team all ready assigned to a given unit will probably defend it even if not specifically assigned to Defensive Mission. Was the Team all ready on the unit you are trying to conduct an E&S mission against?

Edit: Not trying to step on your toes Mike. I just knew where the answer was at and Bill's in an active game.
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 11:07 pm: Edit

Hi,

Bill and I have another question

It is the Alliance half of turn 3 and I'm moving the Hydrans. I moved a fleet in Hydran space from 0915 to 1015. Can the Klingons react ships from the West fleet, on the bats in 1214, into the neutral zone?

The scenario rules say that the West fleet is released but that it can't attack the Hydrans unless the Klingons are attacked by the Hydrans first. Thus we are in a gray area and we don't know if the West fleet can react off of the bats either into the neutral zone, or at all.

We are kind of stuck until we get an answer so any help is very much appreciated.

Paul
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 10:31 am: Edit

Paul,

Once the Hydrans cross the neutral zone, if they do not accept interrment, then they have to declare war on the Klingons, which means the Hydrans are attacking and the West Fleet is now released.
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 11:24 am: Edit

Thanks Robert

If I only attack the Klingons, and not the Lyrans, can the Lyrans still use their reserve fleets to support them on turn 3?

Paul
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 07:21 pm: Edit

I think they can, as attacking either Coalition member resultsin both going to war. I am pretty sure of this, but would have to look at the scenario rules to be sure.
By Marc Elwinger (Blades) on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 11:55 am: Edit

What product is Rule 319.0 from? (Something about indepentent fighter ops/raids)
Advanced ops ends at 318, Planetary ops starts at 320. I checked fighter and carrier ops as the logical place and don't see it. There is errata for it in CL29, so I checked CL25-28 but did not see it.
It seems to be a valid rule that is references in 321.0 Speical raids
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Mark (319.0) Offensive Fighter-PF Stikes is in Fighter Ops. and it's on the back of (602.49) along with the Fighter Storage Depot Rule (445.0)
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Peter, here's the answer to the devastation question. It is in the F&E Q&A archive file for CL 34
________________________________________
Quote:
Devastating Planets
Rule (508.21) covers devastating planets. This takes 10 points of damage (20 points of directed damage, without a mauler). This rule also allows the planet defender to take these points voluntarily (using the planet to soak up some damage while hopefully giving some defending ships another round of fighting undamaged). The planet then takes four turns to recover via (508.25). [Note that Strategic Operations includes Hospital Ships (451.31) and Engineers (541.34B) which can speed up this process by a turn or two.]
Now, it has long been a tactic that you might send a fleet to a devastated enemy planet still under the original owner’s control on the last turn of recovery. If your fleet directs more damage on the planet (another 20 directed points), obviously the “recovery clock” should be reset. The rules never actually say you can “re-devastate” a planet during its recovery period, and it never says that such an act “resets” the (508.25) recovery clock, it just makes sense. It is essentially the logical progression of rule (508.213) and the designer insists that this was his original intent, to encourage the invader to attack again and again. This would, in the most obvious case, allow the Klingons and Lyrans to devastate the Kzinti capital continually, and ensures that the Sector B battle is never really over. So it is hereby ruled that you can re-devastate an enemy planet.
The question has previously been asked if a defender could use the voluntary aspect of (508.21) to take more damage on the planet (accepting the re-set clock). This assumes that the Klingons and Lyrans are using capital assaults every turn to force the Kzinti fleet into battle where it can be worn down. This was long ago declared illegal, and an item was published in the Master Errata file (508.21) which says you can only take voluntary devastation on your own undevastated planet. Logically, you could also take this damage “involuntarily” if there was nothing else present that could absorb the damage.
________________________________________


You can always take 10 points on the planet by choice. And there are some tactical reasons you would want to do so.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, September 21, 2009 - 10:16 am: Edit

Sequence of Play Question

The master errata file states:
(105.0) 5-8F: Reference to (307.73) should be (302.73).

I believe the above contains the incorrect step of 5-8F and should instead refer to 5-8K

I purchased my copy of (105.P) Sequence of Play early in 2009 and find that in my copy 5-8K has the reference to (302.73) with no other rule in Phase 5 Step 8 referring to either (307.73) or (302.73)

It the master errata wrong, and if so what step is it actually referring to?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, September 21, 2009 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Oopps - thought the query was in General Discussion - you can read my reply there to Paul's queries!
By Peter Bonfanti (Otherbonfanti) on Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Thanks a lot for the devastation answer, Thomas!
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Peter read the answer completely. My comments about taking the 10 points voluntarily only applies to an undevastated planet.
By Lee Hanna (Lee) on Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 04:47 pm: Edit

Just to make sure, when is war declared? I've got a Klingon diplomatic ship on T6C, within range of Sherman's Planet. The Shermanites went to the Feds last turn, and I want to see if I have a chance to roll to re-neutral them before my armada crosses the Neutral Zone on T7C.

I can move them there in the T6 Movement Phase, roll for it in the T7 Economic Phase, but is the Econ Phase before or after the Federation and Klingons are "at war?"
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 10:28 am: Edit

A quick question, and sorry if it's been asked before - I can't seem to get the search function to work.

I send a ship out to hunt an Orion raider. Can my enemy send a reserve fleet out to the 'battle', thus killing my ship before he could fight the Orion? And what happens to the Orion then, or would the Klingons take over hunting the Orion?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 01:50 pm: Edit

Guys - An apology from FEAR - I have been swamped at work and at home with my son's Cub Scout Pack (anyone want to buy popcorn?) and have been remiss in my duties here. I have one project due in the middle of next month and hope to have more time to start answering long over due questions. I am sorry for the delay. Mike
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 08:40 am: Edit

I know the popcorn pain Mike. I'm a Den Leader in my son's pack also, and I am amazed at how much work it all is! I barely have time to plan the weekly Den Meetings let alone get work done!
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 09:21 am: Edit

Yeah, and I am the popcorn chair for a pack of 100 boys!
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, October 01, 2009 - 01:04 pm: Edit

Wow Mike, that's a lot of boys! The Pack I am in is maybe half of that, at best!
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, October 01, 2009 - 03:54 pm: Edit

We are lucky to have 50 show up for a den meeting, but still, when you get all of them, siblings, and parents together, it is quite a gathering!
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, October 02, 2009 - 10:05 pm: Edit

(441.411) Can free fighter factors be used in the construction of fighter modules that are held for later deployment or immediate deployment? (431.74) covers bases and PDUs. (431.74) Doesn't cover Fighter Modules and FRDs as it was written long before Fighter Modules were allowed to be constructed separately.

If so, at what rate would they be used?

The following would seem to indicate that they can be used in the construction of fighter modules.
________________________________________
Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 12:38 pm: Edit

Can free fighters be used for a monitor pallet? (519.42) doesn't prohibit it, but it says they are at the base rate (432.22). 432.22 also doesn't prohibit it. However, from (431.74), bases & PDUs can't use free fighters. There is no direct prohibition of free fighters, but it could be argues they can't be used for monitor pallets.

ANSWER: Rule (519.42) last sentence specifically says that free fighters CAN be used.
________________________________________


However this does not answer at what rate.
Futhermore Hydran Hybrid ships using (432.242) state that the factors are produced at a rate of 2 fighter factors for each free fighter factor used. As the Hydran Hybrid ships are paying the same EP cost as bases pay for their fighters.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, October 03, 2009 - 08:59 am: Edit

Disregard this post
________________________________________
Quote:
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 10:13 am: Edit

________________________________________
I have copied and pasted it here along with some additional information in red for consideration.

Mike in my search for cross references for the 2010 rule book I found these 2 oddities.

1. Sector Bases (452.12) can repair 6 points each turn. However there is no mention of how many repair points an X-Sector Base can repair each turn.

2. Base Stations (444.33) It has been decided to allow X-Base Stations. Such a unit is 16(6)scout/8(3)scout. Conversion costs are on the Master SITS on-line. The unit requires four SIDS steps to cripple and it requires two SIDS steps to destroy a crippled BSX. The EW ratings are:
EWF 1 2 3
ATTACK: 16 9 3
ATTACK (Drone): 16 9 6
ATTACK (Crippled): 8 3 NA
ATTACK (Crip-Drn): 8 5 NA

(444.12) Non X-Base Stations have a repair capacity of 2 points per turn until Y171 when it is increased to 3 points per turn by modules (future rule)

My question for both is what is the repair capacity for the X-Versions of the Sector Base and Base Station. The X-Versions of Starbases and Battle Stations have increased repair capacity listed in (523.42).
Additional Information regarding repairs by X-Bases.
Starbases repair 16 pts while X-Starbases repair 24 pts, a 50% increase in capacity
BATS repair 4 pts while X-BATS repair 6 pts, a 50% increase in capacity.
FRDs repair 12 pts while FRXs repair 18 pts, a 50% increase in capacity.

Mike, this question is restated and combined from two earlier, and now deleted, posts. -- Jean
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, October 03, 2009 - 11:10 am: Edit

(308.86) states that Starbases resolve voluntary SIDS damage at the rate of 4.5 points per SIDS, and BATS resolve voluntary SIDS damage at the rate of 4 points per SIDS.

(425.15) states that STB resolve voluntary SIDS damage at the rate of 4 points per SIDS.

At what rate do SBX (523.411), BTX (523.411), and STX (452.15) resolve voluntary and directed SIDS damage at?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 - 08:33 pm: Edit

In our current game an empire wants to place PDUs on a developing colony.
________________________________________
Quote:
(446.14) Establishment: At the end of the player's third player-turn (the first being the turn that the tug or convoy arrived), the colony is established and marked on the map by a counter
________________________________________

________________________________________
Quote:
(446.32)PDUs: Up to two defense battalions could built "on" the colony and these would have to be destroyed before it could be "devastated" (446.41). A monitor could be assigned to the colony but does not have to be (519.113).
________________________________________


The question is when can the PDUs/PGBs be placed on the colony?

additional information:
A mobile base can't be upgraded to base station or battle station on the same turn that it is being setup. I consider the placement of PDUs/PGBs before a colony is completed to be along the same lines.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 - 08:35 pm: Edit

2nd question related to one posted on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 - 08:33 pm

Can a developed colony in the area of an unreleased fleet have PDUs placed on it before the fleet is released?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 09:19 am: Edit

(539.72) states that a Theater Transport with U in the special factors position can carry (and deploy) one PDU or base module.

(516.2)K states that the LTT can carry one Defense Battaltion (read PDU).

(509.1)K states to deliver or upgrade defense battaltions (read PDU). see (508.32; or to updrade PDUs, see (433.42).

If a FFT is considered one third of a tug and a LTT is considered two thirds of a tug then shouldn't a LTT be able to carry and deploy 2 PDU/PGBs, also shouldn't a full tug be able to carry and deploy 4 PDUs/PGBs in a turn given that the planet in question has one currently active PDU/PGB (508.33)?

(508.32) states that a Tug is not needed in the capital system to upgrade the defenses there. (433.424) states that the maximum number of PDUs that can be added in a given turn is 4.
By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 12:41 pm: Edit

The troops on the LTT have a more comfortable ride?
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 03:03 pm: Edit

Aren't LTT's limited to 1 pod only?

That doesn't explain why a full tug can't carry two, though! :-)
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 02:09 pm: Edit

A question for Chuck since he wrote the alternate OB.

(704.A1) The home fleet is listed with SPG, SPG under the CO line. Was this intended to be two SparrowHawk G's or was it intended to be a SPG and SKG? Thomas Mathews, 10 Oct 09
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Sends FEAR some adult beverages to help him work on the F&E Q&As. 
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 09:39 pm: Edit

I think you need to send him a 25th hour in a day and maybe an 8th day in a week.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, October 23, 2009 - 09:25 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Q: If the survey ship (542.27) is crippled, does the player have to pay to repair it? Or does he only lose one turn of survey and the ship returns to duty? In other words, is (542.27) “crippled” in the normal sense of the term, or this just a special one-turn delay?
A: If it was a special one-turn delay, it would say so. Crippled means crippled, and you’ll have to have the ship repaired (presumably by the off-map starbase) and pay the cost of doing so before the ship can resume surveying. (Notes made during the design process means that we did consider this and use the proper term.)
________________________________________


The above was asked and answered about a crippled survey ship using high risk survey. As a follow up, the Klingons and Romulans who do not have off map bases to repair their survey cruisers are at a disadvantage. Can they send an Operation Base (453.0) to the off map area to provide that repair capacity?

If the Klingons cannot send an Operation Base off map, can they use the Lyran off map starbase to be repaired?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, October 24, 2009 - 12:48 am: Edit

Nothing prevents the Lyrans from repairing Klingon ships at the Far Stars SB.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, October 24, 2009 - 10:08 am: Edit

Copied from 2010 and posted here to reflect better wording and grammar

(602.31) Request for examples. Thomas Mathews 23 Oct 2009
________________________________________
Quote:
(602.31) Movment: Unreleased fleets cannot use Reaction Movement to move outside of their territory, but can use react to enemy ships outside of that territory. An unreleased fleet may have a Reserve marker (i.e. be designated as a Reserve Fleet) but cannot use Reserve Movement unless released. Note that in the event that enemy ships enter the area of an unreleased fleet, the fleet is released and can use these forms of movement.
The ships of an unreleased fleet can move (operationally) within their deployment area, but no more than six ships can be moved on any given turn.
________________________________________


This rule does appear to be causing some confusion. While the wording may not need to be changed, an example that includes units using operational movement through adjacent neutral zone hexes and units eligible to use reaction movement would be greatly appreciated.

The Klingon East Fleet deployment area includes 1807 but not 1707 which is part of the Klingon Northern Fleet.

So would a Kzinti or for that matter Federation (at limited war) unit moving through 1806 release the East Fleet? 1806 borders both hexes and both orginal fleet deployment areas.

Does it make a difference if the unit in question "captures" the NZ hex or is just moving through it?

In the above hexes, The Klingon player has no way of knowing for sure that the Alliance player is either going to move into 1707 or 1605. I don't believe anyone would deliberately attack 1807 before turn 6, however, I could see such an attack on Turn 6 being possible depending on the deployment of the East Fleet.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Saturday, October 24, 2009 - 11:49 am: Edit

Thomas,

Read 503.61. It may answer your question.

If that's not enough, then do a keyword search for 503.61 and see what Nick Blank (previous FEAR) has said on the subject of entering NZ hexes of future belligerants.

(FEAR, I hope this isn't considered "stepping on your toes." )
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, October 24, 2009 - 04:11 pm: Edit

503.61 doesn't answer anything to help me. It just limits 2 specific hexes for 1 turn and for very specific political reasons.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Sunday, October 25, 2009 - 08:12 am: Edit

I can't see the problem either.

A fleet is only Released if (a) its normal release contions are met OR (b) if "enemy ships enter the area of an unreleased fleet" (600.31).

NZ hexes are not included in fleet deployment areas so will not release a fleet by case (b).

Moving into an NZ hex could release a fleet by case (a) if doing so caused the race to declare war and the fleet in question is released by a declaration of war.

The comment "but can use react to enemy ships outside of that territory" allows a unit in the East fleet to perform the first hex (of extended reaction movement) to a Kzinti unit entering the NZ... ready in case the Kzinti continued into Klingon territory... but it could not enter the NZ hex (as this would leave its deployment zone).
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 09:20 am: Edit

Rule (602.31) is a clarification only and not enabling.

The intent and reason for it is to clarify that an unreleased fleet may use reaction movement for enemy forces moving outside its defined area.

The NZ hexes are NOT part of any fleets deployment zone in any Scenario I am familiar with. If a scenario included NZ hexes as part of a fleets defined area, then once at war, I assume the unreleased fleet could operate in those hexes and even claim them.

But I will assume in this situation we mean a fleet zone that does not specifically include the NZ hexes adjacent. In this case since the unreleased fleet is prohibited from leaving its deployment zone (with the exception for zones without a starbase for conversion purposes) it is prohibited from entering these NZ hexes.

Suppose for a moment the NZ hexes were not in fact neutral but friendly hexes. We KNOW then that the unreleased fleet could NOT enter those hexes, as they are clearly outside its deployment zone. So one should then surmise that these hexes being NZ hexes do not allow the unreleased fleet to enjoy a priviledge not allowed in friendly territory.
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 01:11 pm: Edit

I have a limited war question.

In my current game we are about to enter turn 7 without a Kligon attack on the Federation. This puts the Federation into a limited war situation in Kzinti space. The rules state that the 4th Fleet is released and that the Home and 3rd Fleets are able to move freely inside of Federation space. Does this also allow ships in those fleets to be converted? I'm guessing that the 4th Fleet ships can be, but I'm not sure about ships in the other two.

Paul
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Paul,

My understanding is that any unit can be converted, even those that are not released. The only condition on unreleased units is that they have to be at a particular starbase (or, more rightly, within a given area including one or more starbases).

Thus, units from Fed Home and 3rd can be converted at any valid conversion facility once limited war happens.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 02:07 pm: Edit

I Concur with Ted. Since there is a specific rule allowing fleets without a SB in their designated area to temporarily leave that area specifically for the purposes of conversions, I have to believe that unrealeased fleets that are now allowed to move freely are allowed to convert anywhere a facility exists.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Question regarding 203.731.

I'll simplify the situation to keep it simple.

Hydran fleet is out of supply (and under attack).

Hydran reserve can go to either Hex A - which gets supply to the Hydran Fleet - or Hex C - but has to leave a ship in Hex B to meet pinning requirements. Having Hydrans ships in Hex B and Hex C allows supply to the Hydran fleet. (There is no way to get to Hex C, without going through Hex B).

I believe, that due to 203.74, the Reserve Fleet has to go to Hex A, but could be wrong?

(Although not a FEAR reply, the best I could find in the archives was a comment from Joe S in 2008 that reserve fleet's can't go on a 'fishing exercise' - which seems to support my interpretation)

Thanks
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 10:30 pm: Edit

PaulH, 203.742 allows up to half the reserve (SEs) in Hex B with the rest going to Hex A...
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 01:36 am: Edit

As I read the rules there is nothing that forces you to choose which hex (battle or supply granting) that you wish to send a reserve to, only that when you do so you must minimise left behind ships.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 11:09 am: Edit

Which would imply that if you have a path that can reach the hex by leaving behind zero ships, then you are compelled to go that path.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 12:20 pm: Edit

If I understand the question correctly, A and C are two different hexes, either of which would grant the stranded Hydran fleet supply... so each is a valid destination for a Reserve fleet. Is that correct, Paul?

Assuming so, the choice of which destination hex a Resrve fleet moves to is a strategic matter and is up to the player. Once that hex is chosen, however, then the Reserve fleet MUST then reach THAT hex leaving the fewest pinned units.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Robert Padilla:
Which would imply that if you have a path that can reach the hex by leaving behind zero ships, then you are compelled to go that path.

To the same hex, yes. But not to different hexes.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Peter I believe hit the nail on the head.

If you have two hexes A and C that are legal to send a reserve fleet (under all the restrictions) that is all that matters. At that point the player decides between A and C which will be the reserve hex. Then once that decision is made, the path to the chosen hex must be chosen so as to leave behind the minimum amount of ships.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 04:31 pm: Edit

To clarify the above points - yes, Hex A and Hex C are different hexes.

(I am aware about having to use use a route which goes through no enemy forces if it's possible etc!)

Thanks
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 01:37 pm: Edit

Per 203.731, both of those hexes must have enemy ships in them that are blocking supply. If so then yes you can pick the hex that would allow you to leave a ship behind. Keep in mind that by 203.73 you are compelled to take the shortest legal path to reach the hex. That could make a difference.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 02:20 pm: Edit

November - December 2009 Archive

By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Tuesday, November 03, 2009 - 03:48 pm: Edit

I am just now getting back into F&E after a rather long hiatus due to changing careers. There was a question percolating in my head that has just been brought up again. Its rather hard to formulate so bear with me.

Q: Can x-ships operating under (523.222) allowing them to react to the move of a reserve fleet prevent that reserve from using reserve movement to a battlehex at all, and hence by doing so not have to react.. thereby allowing them to prevent other reserves from moving?

(523.222) is on page 18 of AO and says "Uncrippled x-ships in supply which are accompanied by uncrippled x-scouts can react one hex to the movement of enemy Reserve Fleets, but only if by doing so they enter the hex of the reserve fleet"

(203.74#) states as part of its rather long procedure that a Reserve fleet may not reserve to a battle hex if it would be required to leave behind more than half its ships due to pinning.

For non x-ships things work out just fine.. at the moment your trying to decide if you can reserve to a particular battlehex, you see if a legal route exists.. its determined completly before you start to move if a path exists that satisfies the conditions and namely the condition requiring you leave behind no more than half your ships due to pinning.

However, when you consider X-Ships there is a quandry. You look at a reserve and are considering if you can move it to a battle hex. There are enough X-ships in the vicinity that they could react and pin more than half your reserve short of the battlehex. Most Reserve fleets are around 13SE or less (you can get more ofcourse) so typically 4 X-ships with one of them being a scout is sufficient to block a 13SE reserve. This presents a procedural problem...

Namely when your ready to move your reserve you either have to ask the other player if he plans on reacting his x-ships to prevent your reserve movement. If he answers "Yes" then you are not allowed to make this reserve movement at all and hence he never gets to react since your reserve never moved adjacent to him. Or you could just merrily move your ships to the battlehex either in ignorance or in defiance.. then when he DOES react his x-ships you will realize you could NOT have even begun this reserve movement at all. It certainly cannot be that you react the X-ships and also leave the reserve where it is since 523.222 clearly states you MUST enter the hex of the reserve fleet. You also cannot just drop off enough ships to counter pin the x-ships as you clearly are prohibited from making a reserve movement if you would be required to leave behind more than half your ships while enroute.

So here is the rub.. a single force of 4 X-ships including an X-scout it sitting on a battlehex. There are three reserves each with less than 16 SE's call them A B and C.

Defender: "Okay Fleet A is going to reserve to this battlehex"
Attacker: "Nope, I have enough X-ships to pin you out of the hex.. you would have to leave 8 ship equivalents and that is more than half your force"
Defender: "Well you have to move your X-ships to block then"
Attacker: "Well until you move adjacent I am not allowed by rule to move there"
Defender: "But the rule says if I have to leave behind more than half I cannot move there at all"
Attacker: "Yeah funny how that works"
Defender: "But I have three reserves B and C still have to move there.. and I can't move a single one since you would pin any single reserve.. I cannot move the reserves together to overcome your pin either"
Attacker: "Yeah aren't X-ships a nice toy to have"
Defender: (expletive deleted)

I don't see how this is handled under the rules as they currently exist unless I am missing an erata or something else in the rules. It seems very unfair that a smallish group of X-ships could pin out every reserve you have. But the rules as written seem to allow it.

Btw if it DOES work this way.. dibs on the tacnote.

And I am NOT kibutzing for a rule change.. but if this needs to be fixed, a simple exception could be tacked onto 523.222 as eratta that when X-ships react onto a moving reserve that would pin half or more of the reserve fleet, that the entire reserve is pinned and remains in the pinning hex with the x-ships.
By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Saturday, November 07, 2009 - 04:24 pm: Edit

Just reading the wording and applying a literial view -
it is not a battle hex until the X-ships arrive so there there is no restriction on the reserve fleet moving there.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Saturday, November 07, 2009 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Jason,

With all due respect. That is not an issue, as the issue is the x-ships preventing a reserve by virtue of pinning out 50% of it shy of the hex the reserve player intended to send his reserve. Since it is then illegal to send a reserve, the reserve cannot be sent (at least via that route.. although frequently all possible routes to a particular battle hex will be blocked if one is blocked) if the reserve cannot be sent then the x-ships never react.. if the x-ships never react then they are still free to react to any other reserve that might be sent.. and voila' the single group of x-ships prevents every reserve in range from making the trip.

Now I don't believe this is the intent of the rule, but I also believe there is a problem with how things will work here. I am actually surprised this hasn't come up before.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, November 08, 2009 - 10:05 am: Edit

Question for Fear regarding placement of Police Ships:

(531.12) states: Newly called-up police ships can be placed on the map in any hex that is in supply from the owning race's main grid and part of that race's original territory. (Emphasis supplied).

My opponent (Rob Padilla) is placing a first Fed POL in a hex that has a route to the main supply grid, and thereafter attempting to place a second Fed POL in a hex that could only be in supply to the main grid *if* the existence of the first POL is assumed. This tactic matters a lot, because the *second* POL oppens up a supply route to an otherwise out of supply CVA fleet.

I say he cannot do this because of the sequence of play. Step 2B3 is when police ships are added. There are only two supply checks prior to this phase, step 1A during economics and step 2A (but that only applies to repairs). There is no supply check during placement of POLs in step 2B3. There is no enabling rule that allows you to check supply in the middle of POL placement.

So, the issue boils down to this: 1) My opponent says that placement of the first POL opens supply for the second POL. 2) I say that the sequence of play requires that all POL placement must be in hexes that are in supply as of the moment of the prior supply check at step 1A, which would preclude my opponent's tactic.

I need a FEAR ruling as to which is right: 1 or 2.

To make this as specific as possible, I will give the exact situation below for reference:

It's Alliance turn 14. All information below is as of the moment of step 1A of the SoP. Federation planet 3612 is in Federation hands and is part of the main supply grid (I'm can't remember if a ship started on 3612 or not). Rom SN in 3412. Rom SK in 3311. Klingon fleet in 3210 in full control of the planet. F5 in 3212. 3 Rom ships in 3414, Rom K4 in 3315. Federation CVA task force in 3014. Double starbase and fleet on 2915. No other possible supply route for CVA task force is possible. No other Alliance units present in area.

Robert places a POL in 3413. I question whether 3413 is in supply without a ship being present in 3612, but let's assume that 3413 is in supply. Robert then places a second POL in 3314. No way 3314 is in supply unless 3413 is in supply. POL in 3314 opens supply to CVA task force in 3014.

I say that this tactic is illegal due to 3314 being not in supply at the previous supply check. Robert says that 3314 is in supply by virtue of the previous POL placement, regardless of the SoP.

FEAR ruling requested. Thanks.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, November 08, 2009 - 11:30 am: Edit

Thinking about it, I think another way of addressing the question of POL placement is whether placement is simultaneous or sequential. Still could go either way, depending on how you look at it, but maybe another way to approach the issue.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, November 09, 2009 - 10:17 am: Edit

Thinking *more* about it, not sure that simultaneous or sequential is relevant. If it's a SoP issue, then supply check fails even if sequential placement because there's no supply check to actually open supply.

Anyway, interesting issue.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, November 09, 2009 - 11:34 am: Edit

Personally I think the "supply check" is not relevant. There are situations in F&E where you evaluate supply at the instant of something, like combat. Things like being able to use DB, salvage, cloaking devices, etcv are all determined at the instant of combat, so that previous combats can change the outcome even though there was no formal supply check.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, November 09, 2009 - 11:42 am: Edit

Problem is, those "checks at instant of event," like combat and retreat, are explicitly provided in the rules. No such explicit "instant" check exists with respect to POL placement. Thus, you must rely on the *prior* supply check to determine what hexes are in supply. That would be step 1A - meaning that if a hex is out of supply, then adding a first POL before a second (whether sequentially or simultaneously) won't make any difference as to whether the hex is out of supply for purposes of placing the second POL.

Thus, the supply check is both relevant, and actually critical to the determination of the answer. IMHO anyway.

The bottom line, however, is that the situation is unresolved in the rules. You really, truly could rule either way and it could be correct. However, based on the rules *as written* I would think the stronger argument is mine - but whatever.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, November 09, 2009 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Ted Fay:
Q: During combat of a non-phasing player turn a CV group consisting of {SAV,AD5,F5E} is damaged. Due to the tactical situation, the Klingon player decides to kill the SAV and cripple the AD5.

Are the crippled AD5 and/or F5E allowed to perform CEDS retrograde?

The argument that they "may not" rests on the assumption that once the CV is dead the group falls apart. The argument that they "may" rests on the thinking that the "group" participated in combat and was damaged - which would allow the escorts to use CEDS retrograde.

308.131 appears to be vague on this issue, as it only mentions "CV groups."

A: The now crippled AD5 and the undamaged F5E were part of a “carrier group” at the time of damage and are eligible for CEDS retrograde.

Bill Schoeller:
Q: The Hydrans have activated the Feds on turn 5 Alliance. This brings the Feds to full war.

What are the release requirements for the 5th and 7th fleets? According to the 602.2, the 5th fleet detachment is only released of Klingons enter Federation territory. Also, according to 602.2 the 7th fleet is released (in addition to other restrictions) is released on the second turn after a Klingon or Romulan invasion if not otherwise released.
My interpretation of these rules is that the Coalition has a choice. It can attack the Federation and release the additional forces at the required rate or not enter Fed territory and fight a defensive war only. I assume there is no other adjustment to Hydran activation of the Fed that would supercede any of the Fleet release status.

A: The 5th fleet detachment is only available if Klingon ships enter Federation territory. The same with the 7th fleet, it is only released if any Coalition ship comes within two hexes of any 7th Fleet unit or if any Fed starbase is destroyed by Coalition Forces or if the Coalition invades the Tholians. It is released on the second Federation Player Turn after a Klingon or Romulan invasion if not released otherwise. It is released immediately if both Klingons and Romulans attack the Federation. (601.14) which specifies what happens when the Hydrans enter Federation territory does not change those release requirements.

Jason Murdoch:
Q: Is it possible to strip the fighter modules from a FRD+ and transfer them onto a base in the same hex?
Should this be so then one can get a free set of fighter modules by this procedure as one is only paying the for the fighters when purchasing a FRD+
If one looks at the cost listed in the SIT FRD=10 : FRD+ = 10+6 (no 2EP for the actual modules)

A: FRDs built with FTMs cost either 10+3 (1 FTM) or 10+6 (2 FTMs).

ADDING FTMs later cost 1+3 each.

PFMs are base-like units and can transfer their PFs like other non-PDU bases.

Thomas Mathews:
Q: (320.46) States that a Monitor with a planet blocks Commando attacks against any PDU or other things on the planet.

My question is (320.46) A planet with the original number of PDUs has a Tug setting up a mobile base or upgrading a mobile base comes under a commando raid. The base in question has previously been designated as being co-located with the planet. Would the monitor then block the commando attack against the base under (320.46)? I can see that it would obviously block a G attack against a PRD.

A: A mobile base is set up in the space around the planet, not “on” the planet. As such, it would not fall under the protection of (320.46) which requires the unit to be “on” the planet not “at” the planet.

Bill Stec:

Q: I'd like to convert some Kzinti CVH to BCV(H). Being as the carrier is operating heavy fighters, and the standard BCV operates standard fighters, is there a way to go from CVH to BCVH?

I see from a CVS to BCV for 1 pt. I don't know if it's possible to disband the heavy fighter squadron, replacing it with a standard one, then convert to BCV, and then either recoup the "lost" heavy fighter factors, or transfer them to another unit being constructed in the same hex?

A: I don’t see the issue. The CVH is a BC carrier with Heavy fighters. There is no BCVH in the SIT. If you are proposing one, you need to post this in the SIT section.

Jason Langdon:
Q: Is there a list of which escorts (heavy/medium/light) can be used by which carriers (heavy/medium/light/escort/aux/etc.)?

In CW there is a section saying how many escorts can be used by each carrier type, but I haven’t found a list of the allowable escorts.

A: (515.2) gives specific numbers of escorts per carrier classification.

Thomas Mathews:
Q: Mike, I found this answer to a question I had regarding (309.2) and (318.13). The following is the question and answer
________________________________________
Quote:
Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, November 30, 2003
John Colacito: …can I use 3 bombardment platforms immediately (Y168) or do I also have to wait until Turn 24?

ANSWER: I believe that the turn 24 thing is just for the drone factor increase, while the change from 12 factors to 3 DB units is an actual change to the base rule and thus applies from the start of the game.
________________________________________


However, the above clarification is not in the master errata file but most likely should be in both the F&E2010 Rule book and Warbook. My question was regarding the inclusion of the LAD with 2 other drone ships for a total of 14 DB factors instead of 12 DB factors that the original (309.2) rule provides for.

I realize that the LAD and DND are in a "later" product, but in my opinion the wording of (309.2) leads to confusion by stating the limit of 12 DB factors.
Also If the Kzinti's had the EP's to build a 2nd LAD could they use the 2 LAD's and a 3 DB platform for a total of 16 DB factors before Turn 24?

A: It is, according to (318.13), three drone bombardment platforms. So, the Kzinti could build another LAD, early in the war and use in the capital defense 2xLAD and a DND for 18 factors early in the war and only expend 0.6 EPs per round.

Jason Langdon:
Q: Lyran Turn 1

Attack 0902 with enough to pin, attack 0703 and 0803 with enough to defeat, and attack 0903/1003 in order to pin the Duke's forward force.

The Kzinti use Duke's RESV to go to 0803.

The Lyran's withdraw from 0902 in to 0802. The Lyran force in 0903 win and the Kzinti withdraw. 0703 falls and the Kzinti need to retreat a BC and FFK.

Question is, where can they withdraw to? 0702 and the 2 Neutral Zone hexes are empty, so I assume they can go to these? In 0803 there are more Lyrans than Kzinti.

I ask because I remember in one of the Captain's Logs a comment that the Kzinti in 0703 are only ever able to withdraw to 0704. Did I misread this?

A: Let’s go through the retreat priorities:

Step 1: The player can select any hex in Neutral Territory. The Lyrans, I am assuming for this example, claimed 704 making it no long Neutral. The Lyrans would have been smart to leave 3xPOL with a convoy in 0704 to eliminate this question totally, but that didn’t happen here. Hexes left to consider are 0603, 0602, 0702, 0802, 0803, 0704

Step 2: 0803 and 0802 have more Lyran ships than Kzinti retreating. Hexes left: 0603, 0602, 0702, 0704

Step 3: No hexes left would be out of supply if 0803 still has Kzinti ships in it. Closest supply paths that are not eliminated by Step 2 are 0702, so, 0702 is the retreat hex.

The main question here is that if 0704 is considered Neutral territory. As long as the Lyrans have moved through and claimed the hex it is no longer considered Neutral territory. It is considered Captured Neutral territory and as such no longer available during step 1.

Something to consider here is that the Lyrans should create a convoy in 0705 during the economic phase and move it, along with 3xPOLs for escorts into 0704 during operational movement which would fully keep 0704 out of the consideration for retreat and move a supply point further into Kzinti space for attacks on turn 2.

Lawrence Bergan:

Q. Okay I was looking at the Annex 756 and the rules in 513.121 and 513.136 to determine if the Aux are considered ships. It seems they are not, correct? In the GW opening scenario are the Auxes released or unreleased when the Klingons storm across?

A: Annex 756.0 indeed needs to be updated. Maybe in the F&E 2010 product. The rule (601.12) is 6 ships remain...nothing is said about non-ships (excepting the rules for APT (540.14) and its status in an inactive fleet).

The rule (601.12) requires the number of ships to be left behind to be a minimum of six including the CC. The Kzinti cannot use auxiliaries to satisfy this requirement since it requires ships to be part of the remaining force. Therefore anything else left over is available to be activated and used by normal rules.

Q. Do you know of any rule that allows diplomats to be deployed prior to T1 (during set-up) in the GW (601.0) Scenario?

A: With the Diplomats listed in the Home fleet they would be deployed in the Home fleet deployment area for each empire. There needs to be a rule saying they can be deployed outside this area to do what you want. They can move by APT and PTR once the Home fleet is released. That is the way it is now. Maybe we can fix this as part of the warbook.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, November 09, 2009 - 01:08 pm: Edit

FEAR,

Thanks for answering questions. While you're on a roll, can you answer the POL question posed yesterday? Thanks.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, November 09, 2009 - 01:43 pm: Edit

I am working through the list, I will get to it soon.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, November 09, 2009 - 03:29 pm: Edit

MP 3 Nov: The way I read it, the "cannot move there at all" means "your whole reserve got stuck in the hex where the X-ships met you."
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Monday, November 09, 2009 - 03:37 pm: Edit

SVC,

That seems the most reasonable way to handle it, that when the X-ships react onto the moving reserve then The X-ships and the entire reserve stop in that hex.

Anything else leads to something that seems fairly silly.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Monday, November 09, 2009 - 03:59 pm: Edit

This is information regarding the Police ship callup pending Q&A. I will quote from the Warbook topic an answer Nick Blank gave some time ago that I think bears on this issue.

Getting to brass tacks, the way to determine if it would be legal to place a pol in a given hex (because of supply) is to put the POL in the hex, then ask the question "Is this POL in supply now?" If the answer is yes, then the POL can be placed there, if the answer is no, then it cannot.

Ted and Robert's issue is a bit more complex since Robert is trying to use a newly placed POL to allow another newly placed POL. This sure seems problematical when you look at it. Although it boils down really to if you place POL sequentially or simultaneously as Ted pointed out. Its not a SOP issue though. As Nick pointed out (see below) supply determination for a HEX itself is never checked, we are only concerned with if a Unit in a hex would be in supply. Nowhere else but placement of Police Ships is a reference to a hex being in supply made. What matters is that would the POL be in supply if you put it there.

Here is the text of Nick's FEAR ruling about Police ship callup and the supply issue.
________________________________________
Quote:
Christopher E. Fant: Nick, with the supply thing above, lets say that the hex were 1701, being connected to the offmap. ??Can I place a POL in 1701 if there is an enemy in 1702? The supply path from the offmap travels into 1701 and is not blocked, but from the above it would seem to say that any hex an enemy is adjacent to is not in supply, even if it is connected to a supply path.
ANSWER: Ah, I see where the confusion is, let me think about this again. The problem is that the rules do not really define what it means for a hex to be in supply. The supply rules (410), (411), (412), (413) are written from the point of view of units/ships. A given ship or other unit is in supply or it is not. A supply path to a ship does not actually include the hex the ship is in but includes the hex containing the supply point you are linking to. Now we have the police ship rule that suddenly asks us to determine whether a hex is in supply or not, so how does one do this? The only choice I see (having no other procedure in the rules) is to treat the hex as a unit (even if there are no units present in said hex) and judge supply status of the hex that way. So if a given hex has a valid supply path, it must be in supply. So that means for your off map example, yes the hex is in supply (police ship can be called up). The hex itself cannot be part of a supply path due to enemy adjacent ships, but according to (411.1) the hex itself doesn't need to be part of the supply path. In the earlier example, testing supply status of hex 0212, if 0313, 0412, 0411, 0410, 0409, 0408 is a valid supply path according to the rules then hex 0212 must be in supply even if 0212 cannot be part of a supply path itself. ??I was originally thinking that to be in supply the hex had to be a valid supply path hex, but that is not true according to (411.1). ??I see what you were saying by supply can enter but not leave, but that is a confusing way to put it, at least to me.
________________________________________
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, November 09, 2009 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Ted Fay:
(531.12) states: Newly called-up police ships can be placed on the map in any hex that is in supply from the owning race's main grid and part of that race's original territory. (Emphasis supplied).

My opponent (Rob Padilla) is placing a first Fed POL in a hex that has a route to the main supply grid, and thereafter attempting to place a second Fed POL in a hex that could only be in supply to the main grid *if* the existence of the first POL is assumed. This tactic matters a lot, because the *second* POL oppens up a supply route to an otherwise out of supply CVA fleet.

I say he cannot do this because of the sequence of play. Step 2B3 is when police ships are added. There are only two supply checks prior to this phase, step 1A during economics and step 2A (but that only applies to repairs). There is no supply check during placement of POLs in step 2B3. There is no enabling rule that allows you to check supply in the middle of POL placement.

So, the issue boils down to this: 1) My opponent says that placement of the first POL opens supply for the second POL. 2) I say that the sequence of play requires that all POL placement must be in hexes that are in supply as of the moment of the prior supply check at step 1A, which would preclude my opponent's tactic.

I need a FEAR ruling as to which is right: 1 or 2.

To make this as specific as possible, I will give the exact situation below for reference:

It's Alliance turn 14. All information below is as of the moment of step 1A of the SoP. Federation planet 3612 is in Federation hands and is part of the main supply grid (I'm can't remember if a ship started on 3612 or not). Rom SN in 3412. Rom SK in 3311. Klingon fleet in 3210 in full control of the planet. F5 in 3212. 3 Rom ships in 3414, Rom K4 in 3315. Federation CVA task force in 3014. Double starbase and fleet on 2915. No other possible supply route for CVA task force is possible. No other Alliance units present in area.

Robert places a POL in 3413. I question whether 3413 is in supply without a ship being present in 3612, but let's assume that 3413 is in supply. Robert then places a second POL in 3314. No way 3314 is in supply unless 3413 is in supply. POL in 3314 opens supply to CVA task force in 3014.

I say that this tactic is illegal due to 3314 being not in supply at the previous supply check. Robert says that 3314 is in supply by virtue of the previous POL placement, regardless of the SoP.

Ruling: A supply check is needed for the placement of police ships. The nearest one to the placement of police ships in 2B3 is at 2A1 for repairs. There is no rule saying there is a specific supply check for police ships. Use the repairs supply check at 2A1 for the placement of police ships. A placed police ship cannot open supply until another supply check is made.

This does allow police ships to be placed to open supply for operational movement for units cut off.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, November 09, 2009 - 05:41 pm: Edit

FEAR, thanks for the really fast ruling.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Monday, November 09, 2009 - 06:31 pm: Edit

Mike,

Just to clarify. This is basically saying that Police ships cannot open supply for the placing of other police ships. In essence no boot-strapping of police ships to open supply.

I am not disputing just checking my reading of your ruling.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, November 09, 2009 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Mike, that's my understanding.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 12:31 am: Edit

Michael Parker: you are correct, no boot strapping. BTW, this is confirmed by SVC.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 08:13 am: Edit

Makes sense Mike (FEAR) and its a good ruling. I just wanted to make sure that I wasd properly understanding
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Mike (FEAR)

Further to my earlier question on 203.731 - I can't find Nick's original ruling mentioned in this posting (none relevant parts removed)

'By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 01:46 pm: Edit
Joe,

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. '

As I can't find Nick's formal answer, can you confirm which is correct.

If I have 2 reserve fleets, and to open a supply route to a force being attacked there are two available routes.

Option One - Only uses One Reserve Fleet
Option Two - Requires both reserves Fleets

Do I have to use Option One, or can I choose to use either?

Thanks

Paul
By Mike Dowd (Duellist_69) on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 02:44 am: Edit

Clarification requested:

(450.111) states that there can only be 1 yard of any type in a sector that is not the main effort.

What is the definition of 'sector of main effort'?

I am playing a full game, and not a scenario game, so would this really apply to me?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 07:51 am: Edit

MD if your playing the full game no it does not apply to you and you can build them anywhere you want. Including Off Map in the case of the Lyrans and Federation.

By defination the Hydrans (Sector A), Kzintis (Sector B) and Gorns (Sector F) are in their main sector and so (450.11) would not apply to them.

The Lyrans, Klingons, Federation, and Romulan Main Effort sectors are defined by the Scenario in question. But it does bring up a question for FEAR.

If the Federation is playing Sector D (their Main Effor sector), Can they build MSYs at their off map starbase and still be considered in their main effort? (617.D42) states that they receive EPs from off map production. However any ships produced their would have to travel through either sector B or through the area of the Federation/Gorn border to reach the Federation capital.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 09:25 am: Edit

See 608.46, 617.46, and 675.46, which allow new production to move normally,even if the capital is outside the boundaries of the sector being played. Presumably, this also applies to production at minor shipyards assigned to a sector but not contained within that sector.
By Mike Dowd (Duellist_69) on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Thanks Thomas!
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 08:50 am: Edit

FEAR

I've found something that might be an enabling rule for Diplomats to move on Turn 1.

See (540.14) A race could use an APT, PTR, PXP, or even an FHL to carry a diplomatic team, even one from an inactive fleet. (empahsis mine)
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 12:47 pm: Edit

Thomas, (just some background) the rule you point to was indeed the root of my questioning (what had originally prompted my asking). It was for the GW start at Origins this past year and I had wanted to check to see if both sides could establish diplomats in various capitals to boost income from Turn 1.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Although I think its logical that Diplomats could be somewhere else other than their home capital on T1 its also pretty easy to see that they indeed ARE there according to setup.

But that they cannot be moved until their fleet is released cannot be the case at all. Thomas's rules quotation says that and I offer the following.

Hydran Diplomat's are supposedly part of an unreleased Home Fleet (although I honestly believe this is done as a convenience, I do not believe Diplomats are PART of any fleet if you look at the diplomat rules) and in fact there are no unreleased Hydran fleets and hence no unreleased Hydran ships at all until turn 3.

If it were true that a Diplomat had to wait for an ship in an unreleased fleet to be available before it could move, then a Hydran DIP could NOT deploy into the LDR on turn 1. Hence on turn 2 the LDR would rejoin the Lyrans, and this would happen by rule in every general war game.

This cannot be the intent, nor is it I believe the letter of the DIP rule. You must be able to move DIP's for EVERY empire while they are at peace, beginning on their turn 1. They indeed start at the capital, and they can move using the above mentioned ships even if those ships/units are part of an unreleased fleet. It simply must be so.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Did I read FEAR right? Did FEAR really say that the Klingon Diplomatic ships, since they start in the (unreleased) Klingon Home Fleet can't move until AT3 at the earliest?

I strongly agree with Michael above.

[edit]
FEAR, can we please get a "step 1 appeal" on this one?

Evidence I think you may have missed:
[end edit]

I am certain during development of the DIP rules, which was done on this BBS, that SVC stated that there is no benefit to "moving first" to a NZ planet, since the other player could also simply move to the same planet, and tha the roll for adding a planet to your empire would then be the same for both sides, meaning a "1" gets you the planet, and a "6" means it goes to the other side. (Neither side would get the opportunity to roll such that a "1" or "2" gets them the planet, while still only a "6" gives it to the opponent. This was a matter of a fair amount of contention since people misread the rule and claimed the sequence of play favored the Coalition with respect to diplomats.)

Obviously, this doesn't work if the Klingons get free rolls on T5 and T6 while the Federation Diplomat is stuck in the Federation capital.

[further Edit]

Duh. I should have referenced the rules before writing.

FEAR, during your review, please reference 540.15. This rule specifically states that diplomats function for races at peace, and gives examples of the Federation and Gorns negotiating trade deals, as well as Federation and Klingon diplomats competing for NZ planets.

Combined with Thomas' reference to 540.14, I believe the rules support that all Diplomats are released on T1, and may move on the listed ships to other territories.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, November 14, 2009 - 11:51 am: Edit

(320.21) says I can use upto 3 ships in a drone raid.
(320.311) says I can move those on map ships upto 2 hexes and use (314.21) for those ships from the raid pool.

My question is can I use a combination of the two forms of movement to get a 3 ship drone raid? The scout function requirement is being met by using a drone ship with scout functions.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Saturday, November 14, 2009 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Good question Thomas,

I was going to answer No and quote (320.3) and (320.31) then I realized they don't exactly say what I thought they said.

Tuff one FEAR
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, November 16, 2009 - 04:21 pm: Edit

Mike/FEAR

Any chance my two questions can be answered as soon as possible please?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Question regarding 203.731.

and

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Thanks
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 01:49 am: Edit

Q&A Archive:
Note that (602.49) does not allow the Federation to capture the NZ hexes

In which module is rule 602.49 located?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 06:15 am: Edit

Peter, it's in Fighter Operations.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Question regarding reaction movement.

Lyran and Zin forces face off across the NZ. Lyran Home is in 504. Zin Lumien is in 703. Zin Duke's is in 903. It's alliance turn 1.

From 703 (Lumien) Kzin FF moves into 603 to try to claim the NZ hex. Lyran Home reacts one Lyran FF by extended reaction into 603 to counter. Zin BATS 703 sends in a fighters strike to 603. Lyran BATS 504 reacts by sending in a fighter strike to 603. So far, so good.

Next, Zin FF from Duke's fleet in 903 moves 802, 702, 602. Lyran Home fleet reacts a FF by extended reaction into 603.

Honorable opponent now claims that doing so "frees up" the previously pinned Lyran FF in 603 to react to use normal reaction to the movement of the Zin FF into 602. Basically, he's doing a "ripple reaction" - using the second FF to move into hex 603, and then free up the first FF in 603 to move into 602.

I cannot find a rule that allows this or forbids this. (205.5) just says that multiple units can react.

I think reaction is simultaneous. If so, then the Lyran FF in 603 is pinned at the instant the Zin FF moved into 602 - so it doesn't matter whether or not another Lyran FF comes into 603 to relieve pinning. In other words, because reaction is simultaneous, there is no "ripple reaction."

Honorable opponent says otherwise, that basically reaction of second FF can free up first FF to react.

Which is correct?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 12:25 pm: Edit

Additional thinking:

If the first FF has to "wait" for the second FF to arrive in order to free up the first FF - then during that time the Zin FF can "escape" and keep going moving. However, had first FF been available (not pinned), then nothing would prevent both Lyran FFs from reacting to the one Zin move.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Unfortunately I do not have a copy of my rulebooks with me at work. So I cannot quote the rules verbatim.

I believe that pinning is only checked at the moment I try and move a ship. The FF in 603 is eligible for reaction since it has not reacted except by extended reaction.

I could be wrong, but the text of the rules for reaction doesn't say "Units that are pinned are ineligible to react" it makes no such mention. The pinning rules are I believe written to say that when you try and move the ship you see if your pinned.

We also know you can move multiple units in the same or different hexes in reaction.

My logic is that by the rules when I consider my reactions I do the following.

The FF in 603 is eligible to react because it has not previously reacted.

The entirety of the fleet in 504 is eligible for extended reaction.

I choose to extended react into 603 as that and 503 are my possibilities.

Now I choose to react the FF in 603, since there are units in 603 I now must check pinning.. Since I am not pinned I can move.

Appealing to the idea of simultaneous or not is not an issue in my eyes. If the Reaction rule said simultaneous I could see that argument.. or if the rule said an pinned unit is ineligible.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 12:54 pm: Edit

In my view, the first Lyran FF in 603 could not react because it is pinned at the moment a reaction opportunity is generated.

Either interpretation is possible under the rules. FEAR ruling needed, or maybe this has been decided already.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 04:13 pm: Edit

Sorry if I am stepping on FEARS toes.

Quote "From 703 (Lumien) Kzin FF moves into 603 to try to claim the NZ hex. Lyran Home reacts one Lyran FF by extended reaction into 603 to counter"

From this quote - the Lyran FF has NOT used Extended Reaction - as I assume the Lyran FF was in 504?

'In effect', you can only use an extended reaction, if you are reacting to something which is 2 hexes away - not in an adjacent hex.

The key is contained in 205.3 - the inner 6 hexes are considered the Inner Reaction Zone - and uses rules in 205.2 and the outer 12 hexes are the Outer Reaction Zone.

205.35 confirms a ship can only make one of each type (although it calls it Long Range and Short Range Reactions - 'it clearly' is refering to Extended/Outer and Normal/Inner as there is no other reference to Long and Short Range reactions) - and you can't do a Short Range Reaction and then a Long Range Reaction or a Short then a Short - (it has to be Long then Short).

So, the Lyran FF that originally reacted to 603 - can't react to 602, as it's already used it's short range reaction up.

Obvously, this is just my 2c though!

Edit - Just remembered. If the First Kzin FF had say moved from 902 and the Lyran FF had reacted into 603 while the Kzin FF was in 703 (and then the first Kzin FF moved into 603), it COULD then react into 602 when the second Kzin FF moved into 602 - as it is possible to unpin a unit (either eligible to Op Move, Reserve Move or React move) - this was clarified I believe by a FEAR - several years ago!
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 05:56 pm: Edit

Paul,

The FF in 603 had not used short reaction. It had reacted from 504 to 603 when some units entered 703.. it used Extended reaction with the BATS sensors. Then some Kzinti Fighters and Lyran Fighters joined the party.

Ted had moved to 703 intending to go to 603.. but I reacted the FF from 504 first.. then he moved into 603 with his FF.. then he struck with Kzinti BATS fighters.. then I reacted with my own
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 07:35 am: Edit

Michael

I believe the Lyran FF can still do a short range reaction then (as it will be unpinned by the other Lyran FF) - but I am not FEAR!
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 09:26 am: Edit

Paul,

That was my thought too.. but Ted has a good argument also which is why we are imposing on Mr. Curtis as FEAR to lock this one down for us.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 11:04 am: Edit

What does the SoP say? If it says that extended reaction happens first, then there is no issue.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 11:57 am: Edit

Page 27 of the CL40 Supplamental File includes a rule question that reveals that 90% of you are using the Retreat rules WRONG.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Michael Parker:
Paul, That was my thought too.. but Ted has a good argument also which is why we are imposing on Mr. Curtis as FEAR to lock this one down for us.

I agree. I'd assume that too and was sure the rules would back me up... but they don't. They are silent on the issue!

The rule problem is that Pinning is described (essentially defined) in the Op Move section, with a few extra notes in the Reaction section. But Op Move differs significantly from Reaction movement in that once an Op Move stack ceases movement it can not longer move again that phase... and pinning is described under that assumption. But this is not true for reaction movement where a unit can move 1 Extended reaction, let other units move, then later move 1 Normal reaction.

While I think the intent is there (the rule comment about recalculating pinning multiple times for a single hex) the actual rule isn't! Bring on the FEAR!
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Friday, November 20, 2009 - 01:12 am: Edit

With regard to 'Ripple Reaction', as I understand it only units which move together (same start & end hex) are considered to move simultaneously. But it definitely needs FEAR.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Friday, November 20, 2009 - 10:09 am: Edit

Peter,

Yea that was sort of my thought too.. but that whole discussion about each unit or stack moving consecutively is about operational movement... and it goes into great detail explaining why operational movement needs to be done this way. So this leaves room since the rules are silent to suppose that reaction movement might be simultaneous.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, November 21, 2009 - 09:39 am: Edit

(542.11) states that a Survey Ship may be built as new construction for 5 EPs more than the build cost of the base hull. (Fed SR would cost 13 EPs + 3EPs for an additional survey slot if this was not a replacement for the CVL below) It also states that SRVs (Fed CVL) would add the cost of fighters and count against the medium carrier limits.
Do Survey Ships count against the limit of new construction scouts? I.E. I build a SR to send Off Map to replace the CVL that is on Map when the Federations goes to Limited War or The Klingons Invade on Turn 7.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Question about how Klingon Honor Duel option for penal ships work with new ESSC rules. It does not make a whole lot of sense that it can take a retreat option given that it's basically taken out of the combat anyway (and can still be directed). So, how is "retreat" (1 casualty) resolved for the penal ship during an honor duel?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 - 07:58 pm: Edit

I have a fleet of 12 adopted Kzinti ships in Federation space. Four of these ships are a CVA group (CVA, 2xMEC, FKE). If during a battle the FKE is destroyed, can I use a Federation FCR to bolster the group thereby creating the following carrier group: (Z-CVA)-(F-FCR)-(2xZ-MEC)

The homeless ship rules (410.5), the FCR rules (526.3) and the CEDS rules (308.1) are all silent on the issue.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 - 10:26 pm: Edit

Robert, offhand I'd say no as 'groups' usually have the same race tag...a Kzinti FCR could be used, but not a Fed
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 - 09:30 am: Edit

My only issue is that for all intensive purposes, the ships are considered Fed. Heck you even have to pay an additional 1 EP surcharge to adopt a CV group.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 - 09:43 am: Edit

I can see Roberts point actually. Part of the adoption process is doing some work to allow the foreign ships to integrate smoothly (well honestly more smoothly than otherwise) into the native logists as well as command and control. So we are talking using native fighters, drones, com gear and such.

I am NOT saying I think the FEAR should rule its allowed.. I really don't know, but at first blush I thought no.. but thinking about adoption and the costs it does have some merit.
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 - 10:01 am: Edit

I see that 515.54 says that escorts must be the same race as the carrier they are formed into a group with.

I found this when I was trying to determine if one could legally put those dynamite Lyran carrier escorts with a Klingon carrier...
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Deleted.

I found my own answer in the Master Errata File. I should consider proper order of operations when I have a question!
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, November 29, 2009 - 03:22 pm: Edit

FEAR

Any idea when my two questions will be answered (my game with William can't really proceed without a ruling)?

Thanks

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Question regarding 203.731.

and

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Cheers

Paul
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 29, 2009 - 08:45 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, November 21, 2009 - 09:39 am: Edit


(542.11) states that a Survey Ship may be built as new construction for 5 EPs more than the build cost of the base hull. (Fed SR would cost 13 EPs + 3EPs for an additional survey slot if this was not a replacement for the CVL below) It also states that SRVs (Fed CVL) would add the cost of fighters and count against the medium carrier limits.
Do Survey Ships count against the limit of new construction scouts? I.E. I build a SR to send Off Map to replace the CVL that is on Map when the Federations goes to Limited War or The Klingons Invade on Turn 7.
________________________________________


Additional information for consideration: (542.24) states The Lyran SR does not count against the Tug build limit if it is sent off map on the turn of construction.

Tugs and Scouts are limited build ships.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, November 29, 2009 - 09:21 pm: Edit

I hope to catch up starting on tomorrow. Paul, I will jump right in on yours first.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, December 04, 2009 - 10:46 am: Edit

[Deleted] No need to repeat questions, it will just confuse the answering of questions. I will get to them. Yes, I know I am behind (about six months) and am working to get the Q&A done.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, December 04, 2009 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Paul Howard:
Q: Question regarding (203.731).

I'll simplify the situation to keep it simple.

Hydran fleet is out of supply (and under attack).

Hydran reserve can go to either Hex A - which gets supply to the Hydran Fleet - or Hex C - but has to leave a ship in Hex B to meet pinning requirements. Having Hydrans ships in Hex B and Hex C allows supply to the Hydran fleet. (There is no way to get to Hex C, without going through Hex B).

I believe, that due to (203.74), the Reserve Fleet has to go to Hex A, but could be wrong?

A: Indeed, (203.74) requires a reserve fleet to choose the path that does not encounter enemy units if it is available. This is for each “target hex” ((203.73) with exceptions (203.731) and (203.732)) for the reserve fleet. Opening supply is a “target hex” for the reserve as is a battle hex. Both are different destinations and as such different choices in the selection process.

This process requires the limited number of ships left behind after the hex choice is given per (203.741). So, we have two choices for reserves, hex A or hex C in this example. If we choose hex a then we cannot leave any ships behind getting to hex A and this is so in this example. We cannot choose a longer path or a path that will leave any ships behind if there is a path that will allow us to reach hex A without encountering an enemy unit.

This is the same for hex C. If there is a path that will allow the fleet to get to hex C without leaving ships behind and keeping the reserve intact then it must be used. I believe this example is saying that hex B is the only hex the reserve can enter to get to hex C for reasons that have not been supplied here. As such, the reserve force has to meet the requirements of (203.741). If it can meet these requirements and reach Hex C then the supply path will be opened. [last part edited for correctness...]

This should also answer your 10 NOV 09 question.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, December 04, 2009 - 07:28 pm: Edit

Mike,

I believe that the last part of that ruling is in error. I don't have my rulebook, but I'm pretty sure the reserve rules states that another reserve cannot go to a hex that you sent a reserve to to open supply. I would suspect this would also include the case when said reserve had to leave a ship behind to satisfy pinning requirements.

Sorry on the repost, but it had been six months and I wasn't sure if those had fell through the cracks.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Friday, December 04, 2009 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Quote:(203.733) Only battle hexes which existed before Reserve Movement can be the target of a Reserve Fleet; exception (203.732). If one Reserve Fleet creates a battle hex via (203.731) or (203.732) a second Reserve Fleet cannot move to that newly created battle hex.


I believe this is the rule your refering to Robert. Indeed when you use the (203.731) or (203.732) exception to reserve to a hex to open supply you may NOT move another reserve to this(these) newly created battle hex(es).

I had to read this example five times to get it to sink in, but I finally got it! This comes up so rarely in game (or maybe it comes up all the time and I never notice these opportunity hexes to open supply). Good ruling even if it does make my head spin! [FEAR: Thank you, I stand corrected... That is what I get for trying to answer questions when a server is going south at the same time!]
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 07:32 am: Edit

Mike

Thanks, that answers the previous question - the 10th November refered to -

As I can't find Nick's formal answer, can you confirm which is correct.

If I have 2 reserve fleets, and to open a supply route to a force being attacked there are two available routes.

Option One - Only uses One Reserve Fleet
Option Two - Requires both reserves Fleets

Do I have to use Option One, or can I choose to use either?

i.e. Hex X or Hex Y and Z will allow supply - a single Reserve fleet can only cover one hex (so my previous question will not be relevant) - do I have to go to Hex X?

Thanks
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 08:34 am: Edit

(444.15) states that Base Stations (BS) resolve voluntary SIDS damage at the rate of 5 points per SIDS,

At what rate do BSX (444.33) resolve voluntary and directed SIDS damage at?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 11:49 am: Edit

Paul,

I asked a very similar question maybe a year ago. The short answer is you have to use as few reserves as possible to open supply. If one can do it, then you can only use one. Basically you can't go fishing for new battle hexes when opening supply.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 09:27 pm: Edit

(436.0) and (525.1) Can I build a B9 without using the direct build cost? Meaning I Pay the 5EP per turn for a 1D6 Roll.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 10:38 pm: Edit

FEAR,

CL#40 Supplement states on page 27 with regard to sending an OPB to the Romulan offmap area:
________________________________________
Quote:
Rule (506.3) does not allow the Romulans to build any bases or planetary defense units in the offmap area. I don't believe they can send an OPB off-map either, as it violates the spirit of the intent of (506.3)
________________________________________

Then the relevant portion of (506.3).
________________________________________
Quote:
...The Romulans cannot build bases or PDUs (or a capital) in that area; it is for exploration only.
________________________________________


Firstly, is this item in the CL#40 supplement force of rule?

If so I would like to have this ruling re-considered.

I am unsure what the intent of the 506.3 rule is or rather how moving an OPB there violates the rule. Perhaps its been ruled previously, but I have always thought by the rule as it exists in FE2K one could legally setup a MB there, just it could not be upgraded. Since MB's existed when this rule was written, it seems odd to me if MB setup in the Romulan Off-Map was disallowed it would have been mentioned. An OPB is an entity very much LIKE a setup MB just more expensive and convenient.

I am not sure why anyone would want to put a MB or an OPB in the Romulan off-map area in any case, at least until repair modules are added, as they don't add anything to the off-map since they most certainly could not be upgraded to a permanent base.

I have seen some talk about needing a base for Strat movement, but (204.2) clearly lists off-map areas as a SMN in and of themselves not requiring a base to be there.

EVEN if the idea were SMN, you can park a tug there and declare it a supply point and it then becomes a SMN.

Repair capacity also seems to be a red herring, as there is no restriction from sending an FRD there. Also once you have a colony there, a PRD can be built at the colony, and rpair ships could be sent there in the absence of any of that to repair crippled survey ships.

The main spirit of (506.3) seems really to be mostly of the order that you just plain cannot put permanent bases there and specifically I get the strong indications its to completly disallow the idea of a Romulan Capital/Shipyard there. ala Kzinti and/or Hydrans in many GW games.

Allowing an OPB into the Romulan off-map does not seem to violate either the letter, or the spirit of the rule (admittedly spirit as I see it of course). It does not put any capability in the offmap that does not either already exist (namely SMN) or cannot be easily put there (FRD or PRD at a Colony). And the repair capacity is only an issue at all once repair modules for MB and OPBs are put into a rule.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, December 06, 2009 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Additional Information for MP's appeal. This is copied directly from Captain's Log 38 Q&A Archive file By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 04:22 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
Q: Since there are no Off-Map Area Romulan bases, can the Romulans actually reach and return from their Off-Map Area via Strategic Movement?
A: The Romulan survey ships enter the Off-Map Area (and return from it) by Operational Movement. They have no bases in the Off-Map Area, nor may they build any; see rule (506.3). They could set up a tug off-map to act as a supply point (and SMN) or deploy a mobile base, which is not prohibited by (506.3), or build a colony there. Otherwise, it takes them two turns to transit from the capital to the Off-Map Area and vice versa.
________________________________________


(453.0) Operational Bases are built, and function like Mobile Bases and in use are simply a special form of Mobile Bases.

This would indicate that they are a Mobile Base for all purposes unless further modified by (453.#).
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, December 06, 2009 - 05:06 pm: Edit

Robert

I couldn't find a formal FEAR answer on it. Do you know when it was answered?

Thanks
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, December 08, 2009 - 07:45 am: Edit

Mike

Sorry - further question I just thought of with regard to my question 203.731 (similar to the unanswered question,but not quite).

Hex A is blocking Supply to Hydran Fleet 1
Hex B is blocking Supply to Hydran Fleet 1 and also Hydran Fleet 2.

Hydran Reserve Fleet 3 can reach Hex A or Hex B.

Hydran Reserve Fleet 4 can only reach Hex A.

Would it be legal to send Reserve Fleet 4 to Hex A and then Reserve Fleet 3 to Hex B.

I can see justifiations for both - Reseve Fleet 3 moves to a legal hex - and then Reseve Fleet 4 moves to a legal hex (which though makes Reserve 3's hex illegal - but that has already been done...so does it stand).

I think the answer is 'no' - hex B restores supply in the fewest number of reserve fleets - and so that trumps moving the other fleet first - but could be wrong.

i.e. in this example - you can do hex A or hex B - but not both.

Thanks
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Mike,

Question about reaction. This is the situation.

Z Force 1401
K Force 1402 with scout
K Force 1202

Z force moves to 1302 K declines reaction.
Z Force moves to 1202
Z Force breaks off a fleet to counter-pin 1202 and finishes its movement there by announcement.

K player announces reaction fro 1402 to the fleet ending movement in 1202.

The argument goes as follows when you end your movement your assumed to expend remaining movement in the last hex. Therefore since the finishing fleet expended movement points in 1202 inside the extended reaction range of the 1402 fleet, I can choose to react to it. 203.64 which is called out in 205 (reaction movement) gives an example where it explains the notion of 'moving in place' and in the example it says 'allowing another chance to react' unfortunatly it does not state extended react.

My opponent argues that since 1302 to 1202 increased the range from 1402 I cannot react to it (which I agree with up till this point) and that the fleet stopping in 1202 since its last movement increased the range prevents me from reacting to this stoppage.

I claim the 'last movement' was not 1302-1202 it was in essence 1202 - 1202 since (203.64) states
________________________________________
Quote:
... a stack which ends its movement (announced by the owner) with unspent Movement Points is assumed to spend those movement points in the last hex.
________________________________________


Unfortunately the rules seem to be vague.. I have a good argument, opponent does also.. the rules fail to come out and explicitely state on this issue.

Jeff Laikind on appeal in support of a FEAR ruling said this on March 2nd 2004
________________________________________
Quote:
If an enemy ship spends a movement pulse by staying in place, it can be reacted to (205.1).
If an enemy ship stops moving, for whatever reason, it is considered to spend all of its remaining pulses (203.64).
Ships can use extended reaction to react to enemy ships that have stopped, provided they didn't move away on their last movement (205.33).


The rules are quoted as follows:

(203.64) The Phasing Player may skip his movement during some impulses in an attempt to deceive the Non-phasing player. A stack which ends its movement (announced by the owner) with unspent Movement Points is assumed to spend those points in the last hex.
EXAMPLE: A Klingon force has entered the outer reaction range of a Kzinti force (with a scout) 2 hexes away. The Kzinti frce did not react as the Klingons hoped. The Klingon player states he will not move during his 4th pulse to give the Kzinti player another opportunity to react.

(205.11) The reaction to a given enemy unit can occur immediately after a pulse of movement by the unit or (203.64) after a later non-moving pulse of that unit.

(205.33) Whenever an enemy unit enters a hex of the defending ship's Outer Reaction Zone, the defending player may move in Reaction Movement to a hex adjacent to the approaching enemy unit. Also see (203.64) for data on skipping movment pulses. Exception: No reaction is allowed to units moving away (205.1).
________________________________________


which is also ambiguous but I think supports my point.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 - 04:23 pm: Edit

I realized I never really asked a Question. So here it is.

Q: Is it legal to use extended reaction to react to a fleet that moved away from you, but then subsequently ended its movement in a hex within your extended reaction range?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, December 10, 2009 - 11:49 am: Edit

(436.0), (312.323), and (525.1) Can a B9 carry one or two SFGs?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Thursday, December 10, 2009 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Thomas,

The B9 stuff might be better put in the SITS area rather than here. There is also the issue of how official a B9 is in F&E, its listed as a CL31 ship in the SITS, so I don't know if its allowed at all, except in a game between folks that would mutually allow it.

Not trying to answer your question, just trying to direct you to the SITS topic which might be a better place to get an official answer on this
By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Thursday, December 10, 2009 - 05:01 pm: Edit

micheal, the third line of jeff laikind's ruling that you quoted, directly and negatively addresses your question. the kzinti fleet ending in 1202 used its last movement (not movement point, actual movement) to increase distance from 1402.

you can put on your logician cap and claim the word "provided" means "if" and not "if and only if" but i doubt that will be warmly received.

im pretty sure the rule structure is designed to prohibit the following abuse: large coalition fleets in 1301 and 1502 each contain scouts. any significant fleet leaving 1401 gets pinned by one half of the pincer, and the other half uses extended reaction to enter 1401 and conduct a raid on highly favorable terms during the alliance turn. any ruling favorable to your seemingly harmless request is going to enable my much more abusive tactic.

just my two cents.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Thursday, December 10, 2009 - 06:30 pm: Edit

Chris,

I wrote a long message disagreeing with you and stating my aguments, same as the ones I used with my opponent.

But after reading Jeff's statement I think I see how it says what your saying and disagrees with me.

he uses the phrase "that is stopped" so obviously he is talking about exactly the sort of thing I am speaking about... then he says "unless its last movement" so in this case it seems to me now that he is making a clear distinction between forces that are stopped, and its last movement. If stopped forces that expended movement points in their pin hex were considered still moving, why would Jeff phrase it as he has, the only reason to use 'stopped forces' and 'last movement' in that statement is to differentiate between the two.

Mmmmmm I think I have been proven wrong. Mike would you still comment on this when you can.. but no need to go into detail if you rule against me.. just tell me to read the rules as written!
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, December 10, 2009 - 06:40 pm: Edit

IMHO rule 205.16 is very clear that in the situation suggested by Mike, above, the Coalition units cannot react. Obviously, Mike doesn't think so, so ruling is needed. Here are my arguments and rules references.

For the reaction movement question above, what I think is the controlling rule is 205.16. In relevant part it states (emphasis mine):
________________________________________
Quote:
Thus, a unit moving away (increasing the range) cannot be reacted to, even with extended reaction. For example, If a Coalition force and an Alliance force are in adjacent hexes and the Coalition force moves away from the Alliance force, the Alliance force cannot react even if the Coalition force ends its movement after only moving 1 hex.
________________________________________


Although an argument can be made that this rule applies only to one hex reaction, that seems a very unnatural interpretation to me - especially in view of the provision that no reaction is possible "even with extended reaction." Instead, I'd say that this rule applies to both one hex reactions and extended reactions.

203.64 is a general rule that if an opponent stops moving his remaining pulses can be reacted-to. However, I say that the specific rule of 205.16 overrides any argument based on the general rule of 203.64.

Note that the last sentence of 205.16 refers to 203.64. However, I don't think that is providing any exception to the rest of the paragraph in 205.16; rather, it is simply telling you what happens if an opponent announces a move and then doesn't actualy move the units.

I respectfully submit that if a unit moves away from an enemy and uses remaining movement to stop in an extended reaction zone, that the enemy may not react under 205.16. Please confirm/deny.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Friday, December 11, 2009 - 02:23 am: Edit

I take the quote above at its word when it says "ends it movement". Ie, I assume it means the 6th impulse which can happen in a variety of ways.

It is a question worth clarifying, though.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, December 11, 2009 - 02:46 pm: Edit

Although FEAR needs to confirm your answer Michael, I think the specific rule (no reaction to units moving away) trumps the general rule (can use all remaining movement in last hex).

Therefore, the fact the force first moved away, would stop any forces in 1402 reacting in anyway to the 1202 move (unless they 'overan' 1202 and went say to 1101 - and then came back to 1202, as the specific rule would then not be relevant then, as they would create a new set of reactions)
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Friday, December 11, 2009 - 05:28 pm: Edit

Paul,

While I believe Ted and Chris are right now and I was mistaken. I do not believe its a matter of specific vrs general here. I believe its a matter of defining what a move is.

I thought the way I did because it makes sense to me when it says in 203.64 that a unit uses its left over movement points in the hex.. to me it seems immediate that it meant it used them moving.. the ship certainly didn't use them betting on the superbowl. So if a unit is moving, its able to be reacted upon, which 203.64 goes on to speak about.

However when looking at Jeff's ruling from 2004 the thrid line hit me once I started considering the point Chris made. When Jeff used 'units that have stopped' and 'move away on their last movement' in the same sentence it seems clear to me that he only did so because there is a difference.

If a stopped unit used its last movement in the hex then Jeff wouldn't have had to distinguish between stopped units and units moving away on their last movement, as a stopped unit by definition cannot move away.

I believe the moving away part is in there to eliminate jerky things like Chris described, and I am sure a host of other things.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, December 12, 2009 - 08:35 am: Edit

(502.63) states that orignal planets in a given empire receive free PFs at the rate of 1 Free PF flotilla for minor planets and 2 for major planets. My question is do colonies (446.3) with PDUs receive free PF Flotillas and if so how many PFs?

(502.63) Bases have a deployment schedule for free PF Flotillas. When do planets receive there free PF flotillas?
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, December 12, 2009 - 09:06 am: Edit

502.612 specifies that planetary free PFs are received on the second turn of PF deployment.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, December 12, 2009 - 10:06 am: Edit

Thanks Jason, I can't read this morning.

FEAR please disregard the 2nd question from this post: By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, December 12, 2009 - 08:35 am: Edit
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Saturday, December 12, 2009 - 11:31 am: Edit

I originally favoured the 'move away then idle on the spot -> no reaction' interpretation but looking more at the rules (and my assumption of their intent) I now think the reverse.

There may well be previous related rulings but my take on "a unit moving away (increasing the range) cannot be reacted to, even with extended reaction" is that you can't meaningfuly react to something if you won't shorten the range (so an enemy moving closer, or expending a movement pulse on the spot harassing the hex in question, are ok - which are both listed in the rules).

While a unit can cause both cases in a full move (ie, move towards then move away), when an enemy unit expends its 6th movement (and hence ends its move) moving away there is no longer any opportunity for it to reverse or idle on the spot. It can thus be assumed to be 'heading away' until next turn.

If a unit spends most of its move jumping-up-and-down on the spot, harassing all shipping in that hex (even if it moved away 1 hex first) then it does make sense to provoke reaction.

Just my 2c.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, December 13, 2009 - 08:06 am: Edit

I will put my comment on Micheal's Dec9 example/question in Gen Discuss rather than clutter FEAR topic.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Monday, December 14, 2009 - 09:01 am: Edit

Mike C,

A question about Withdrawal before combat.

Given a force composed of:
DN CC 2xCA 3xFF SC
In an opposed withdrawal, which is legal

I. CA is chosen as one of 3 best CR ships before withdrawal. Withdraw 4 ships but not CA. Then two of remaining 4 ships are unchosen flagships and CA goes to the line.

II. Withdraw DN CC 2xCA before combat, FF is flagship in battleround FF and SC unchosen flagship candidates, and FF goes to the line.

Method I. is what I have been doing, its supported by two rules I believe
________________________________________
Quote:
(302.16) If some of the defending ships withdrew before the 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.

(302.133) ...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 Rounds.
________________________________________


Method II. is however supported by the SOP. For withdrawal there are steps. 5-1A and B are just procedural declarations.. we are assuming opposed withdrawal and I am purposefully ignoring cloaked ships at the moment to avoid unneeded complication.

5-1C Non-Phasing player conducts withdrawal using retreat procedures...

5-1D Non-Phasing Player selects flagship of non-withdrawing force; this unit MUST serve as the flagship in the first combat round (302.133)

so looking at the SOP you have already withdrawn your half of the force before you ever get to the Flagship selection process.

While the SOP argument seems pretty sound, you withdraw half your force.. if you withdrew them.. those ships aren't there to be part of the flagship selection process. However 302.133 seems pretty strong for the other method.

(302.133)...One of the three units with the largest Command Rating must remain behind(bold is mine) and must be the flagship (302.32) of the Battle Force in the first Combat Round.

Why would 302.133 use the word behind? It suggests that some unit, and specifically one of the three highest CR units cannot withdraw and must instead remain behind. It also seems odd that if you didn't choose flagships till AFTER half the forces had withdrawn as the SOP shows, then there would be no reason to say 'and must be the flagship (302.32) if the Battle Force in the first combat round.' I mean going by the SOP, you withdraw half your force, then you pick a flagships.. the words in 302.133 would be superfluous to the point of silly I would think.. you just picked a flagship.. Duh! its going to be the flagship in the first battle round.. that is why you picked it.

But the SOP seems pretty darn straight forward also.

Which of these is the proper way to handle Withdrawal before combat with regards to the flagship process?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, December 14, 2009 - 10:05 am: Edit

Mike, that's a darn good question. I've been going with the SoP, but maybe it's not so clear.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Monday, December 14, 2009 - 10:22 am: Edit

Ted,

Just a clarification. We should in our game continue by the SOP until we see something definative. I REALLY don't mind which way its ruled, I just had thought it was one way for so long, then you pulled out the SOP and I blinked a few times!
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Monday, December 14, 2009 - 10:27 am: Edit

Isn't there already a standard of what is used if the SoP and the Rules are in conflict?

I have a vague recollection that both Chuck and SVC have said the SoP is the outline of the turn but the rules are the rules. If there is a conflict the rules control. However, I am not sure about that recollection.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Monday, December 14, 2009 - 11:09 am: Edit

Russell,

I am not sure on that point, but for this situation at least between Ted and I think we would both say.

"while the Rules and SOP seem to possibly be in disagreement, the SOP is VERY clear in what its requires, whereas the rules are less so"

So it looks like the clearer message is being provided for in the SOP. I think there is still alot ot latitude for one way or the other.. hence the FEAR Question, but objectively the SOP leaves less question.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Monday, December 14, 2009 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Michael,

I essentially asked your very question about a year ago.

This is from 1/20/09:
________________________________________
Quote:
Q: Is the flagship selection step in withdrawal before combat (302.133) for the defender skipped for the first round following withdrawal before combat, or is another choice done on the first battle round after the withdrawals?

A: The Sequence of Play, step 5-1D, states the flagship chosen in the withdrawal must be the flagship in the first combat round.

________________________________________
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Monday, December 14, 2009 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Matthew,

Yep except your question I THOUGHT (correct me if I am wrong) was not about what I was asking. It was about do you do the following.

1. Run through Flagship selection process select a flagship
2. Withdraw half your force
3. Run through Flagship selection process again but being forced to choose the flagship you chose in 1.

I know that discussion was going on at the time, but even if your question wasn't about that. The answer given is still vague.

The SOP says you don't even choose a flagship till 5-1D. 5-1C is withdraw half your forces, to it remains to be asked.

Is the required 3rd best CR flagship in withdrawal the 3rd best before you withdraw half or after you withdraw half.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Monday, December 14, 2009 - 10:14 pm: Edit

Unless, of course, the highest remaining CR is a minority empire ship, in which case all three of the highest CRs can escape. Or so it was ruled when this bit me.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 02:42 pm: Edit

Question for FEAR regarding 515.34.

Can an ad-hoc escort have a negative compot?

The rule says that reduce compot by 1/2 or by -3, whichever is greater.

Take an ad-hoc HNG, a 1/4 unit (ignore the fact that the HNG looses its special G abilities by selection as an ad-hoc escort).

By the letter of this rule, the HNG will have a -2 compot.

However, this result makes no sense to me. How can a ship have a negative compot? To do so, the ship would have to be interfering with the other ships in the group. That doesn't make sense because, at least in SFB space combat, ships do not impose line of sight penalties against each other. Hence, the HNG can't "get in the way" of the other members of the group, and shouldn't have a negative compot.

It seems to me that the minimum compot for an ad-hoc escort should be 0. Please present ruling. Thanks.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Ted, I don't see how we could justify detracting from other ships offensive ComPot. My feeling is that 0 would be the lowest possible. Zero meaning "worthless in attack". Still a good question and at an appropriate time because the ruling can go right into the 2010 folder for rules in the (515.0).
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 07:05 pm: Edit

Well I have a couple of points in the ad-hoc escort question.

Firstly while we cannot often apply to logic to understand exactly why a rule works the way it does, in this case there is a very reasonable explanation. Being a CV escort isn't something just any ship can do very well. Whatever is occuring in a CV + Escorts situation is causing several things to happen. How do we logically say in this case that a HNG as an escort is made -2 compot therefor lowering the groups potential? It has very little to do with the HNG lumbering about and getting in the way, it has EVERYTHING to do with a ship completly unsuited to the role being impressed as a CV escort. Other escorts are having to do things to cover for the lack this ad-hoc ship has. They are having to expend energy on normally unneeded movement to cover threat axis that real warship could have covered but this troopship just cannot manage, or they are just plain not in the proper place at the proper time when the group attacks. This means that including a HNG with 1 O compot causes other shisp to behave differently than they otherwise would. That is in general the rationale for the -3 (or half compot) that is the ad-hoc penalty.

Suppose for example you were to replace an Aegis Escort in a modern day CV group, with say the Tarawa troop heli carrier.. it wouldn't do a very good job.. in fact it would probably severly detract from the CVBG's effectiveness, I could easily see it being a net negative on the force as a whole, and I can see the Adm commading the CVBG hollering to high heaven on being burdened with this, not to mention the Marine commander aboard the Tarawa.

On a practical level. If we aren't going to apply the ad-hoc penalty fully to these 1 and 2 compot troop frigates then they will become my ad-hoc escort of choice... Take a E4A and replace it with an E4G. I lose 2 compot, I lose the added escort bonus to directed damage, but I gain a G for capture benefit or to provide backup G's to my SB in defense.

This is NOT about a single ship, its about the effect a single ship that is unsuited to be an escort effects the ability of the CV + escorts.

I am very serious about the idea of putting a troopship into a modern CV group to 'replace' an escort.. it would be a debacle such as has never occured in the USN. And it would so totally destroy the groups cohesion it would definatly cause a large detraction in the groups effectiveness.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 11:17 pm: Edit

MichaelP, you'd also lose the G ability using the E4G as an an-hoc...
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 08:06 am: Edit

515.33, second paragraph (FO rules). What Stew said and they only lose 1/2 of their offensive compot. No indication of rounding up or down. I assume down but only based upon the 515.34 where you have to choose the worst of the two effects.

I still don't buy below zero AF, and I would rather the lowest limit be set at one. It is not like they turn off all their weapons systems and run around soaking up hits on their shields and hull. Their job IS to get in the way and target incoming ships and weapons to protect the carrier. Futuristic starships would/should have the inherent ability to protect themselves from these things and would indeed be able to project their ability upon at least one other ship. The loss of the escort bonus, reduction in offensive compot, and (in some cases) loss of other special abilities perfectly reflect their focused concentration upon this alternate task and their lack of cohesion within the group. There is no need at all to further reduce the effectiveness of other ships. Comparisons to RW liquid surface ships is a weak comparison at best due to the different challenges they have with mobility, offensive weaponry (mostly projectile), and defensive systems. Again good this is brought out now so clarity can be added.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 08:18 am: Edit

Lar,

That's the point though isn't it. A small frigate troopship doesn't lose much offensive ability at all. If we said 1 was the smallest they wouldn't lose any at all.

And as far as comparing to real world wet navy, its the only real comparison we have, and to be honest SFB and hence to a degree F&E are heavily influenced by the idea of wet navy sort of things it seems to me. To argue the point that a troopship as an escort 'cannot get in the way of other ships in space' I agree, but I disagree that is the point, the point is that having a VERY weak escort assigned one of the slots, and hence the duties of an escort, means that the other REAL escorts have to do alot of extra things like sprinting to the troopships assigned area to deal with a threat along that axis, meaning they have to be running at higher speed, etc. The idea of CV groups is very wet navyish, its how the US operates, and if you took a Ticonderoga or a Spruance class escort out of the CV's group and put in a troopship, it would I am near certain bork the entire thing.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 08:47 am: Edit

I think Mike's argument is well reasoned. At this point, it's really a decision of the powers-that-be to pick their original intent.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 11:02 am: Edit

Ted well reasoned is POV...I am not buying.

50% of offensive firepower is not much? Loss of it's special ability? No escort bonus?

I am not sure why the PTB chose not to just make it a standard 50% (and round down) that would have avoided this whole conversation.

A standard cruiser (8 compot) under current rules loses only 37.5% of its compot. This is much less. I think the penalty is fine. We just need to clear up the negative number issue. Right now (with the -3) the threshold is an AF 6 ship...below that it becomes a worse trade. They had to pick an arbitrary number, 3 was it, I think that going negative is too much....from my POV.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 11:50 am: Edit

It is well reasoned I think, as is Ted's position, and to be honest, unless I am missing a ruling or errata on it somewhere, it is the letter of the rule. To change this would require Strong and/or SVC I think. Although as I will freely admit I have been known to read a clear rule wrong in the past, so its perhaps something Mike C can clear up easily one way or the other.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 12:05 pm: Edit

I think that we are discussing the same point about (515.34). Only the examples are incorrect (troopships fall under 515.33). Ted and I agree that is should be zero as the minimum. The point could be made using another ship Right now the letter says nothing leaving one to assume it could be negative. We all agree it needs to be cleared up. It is an issue of negative with standard ships with an attack factor of 2 or less. How many standard ships are we talking about?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 12:08 pm: Edit

I know of no standard ships that qualify as ad hoc escorts that have a compot of 2 or less.

Pretty much it's using G ships as ad-hocs (FFT's?). G ships are explicitly allowed as ad-hocs, though they do lose their G status.

Agreed this is probably a CS or SVC decision.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Troopships and std warships are under a different ad-hoc rule?

Sorry no rulebooks with me here at work.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Gentlemen: Next week, December 21-23, my family will be going to a local state park so my wife and kids can hike all over in preparation for them starting to hike the Appalachian Trail next summer.

With my bad knees, my part of this is to "hold down the fort". This will put me in a location where work will not be able to get to me and no Internet access. Normally, this is a bad thing, but in this case it will allow me to immerse myself in F&E for three days and work 100% on it.

I will do all of the Q&A and reviews of all the rules sections SVC has sent me for 2010. I will try to find Internet access at least once a day to post my progress and check in.

I apologize that very little has been done since Origins, but my life has been crazy and doesn't look to be letting up anytime soon. I just need to manage my time better. I will do better once I have caught up.
By John Doucette (Pbi) on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 03:09 pm: Edit

No worries, Mike, we're all more-or-less capabale of coming up with compromise solutions for the games we're playing (otherwise, we'd have to turn in our Board Wargamers union cards).
By Fred J. Kreller (Kreller1) on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Mike, you need a ham radio so I can bug you during your "incognito" time. :-)
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 03:34 pm: Edit

FEAR,

I don't know if these have "dropped off the Radar" or not, so I'll repost them. From what I remember, this first one was at higher levels for review:
________________________________________
Quote:
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.)

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 16, 2009 - 03:39 pm: Edit

The second was a question I asked and then asked for a Chuck Strong review:

Can a tug pod built in the capital be immediately assigned to a TG outside the capital?

For instance, can the Klingons build a new pair of battle pods and then immediately place them on a TGA in 1502 (owned by Klingons) for use against the Kzinti in a capital assault that turn?

You had originally said "yes." I asked for a review because it really didn't make sense to me to even have the first TG assignment step at all before production if you could then produce a pod and ship it out. The caveat being that a newly produced TG would be produced in the capital, and there would immediately be able to pick up the pod.

So, newly built TGs make sense to me. Newly built pods do not make sense as part of step 2B7.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 08:55 pm: Edit

Troopships and std warships are under a different ad-hoc rule?

MP: Yep GC ships fall under (515.33) which states...

"The following types of units, if used as escorts, lose their special abilities: SFG units, scouts, maulers, ground combat ships, and drone ships. These are treated under (515.34)and lose one-half of their offensive value."

Since (515.34) says -3 or half as the general rule (515.33) the blue emphasis is the specific exception.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 12:20 am: Edit

Lar,

Wow I stand corrected.. specialty ships loose half their O-Value.. only std warships do the -3 or half whichever is more. That makes some sense actually.

Pretty black letter now that you pointed out the rule.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 04:16 am: Edit

It's cool man ...I think that there should still be a statement made in 2010 officially about negative AF from this rule (should a ship be introduced that is considered standard and a 2 or less AF).
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Question about Diplomatic income.

I am trying to cut off Kzinti Diplomatic income from rule (540.22)

(540.22)... This takes effect only if the two capitals have a valid strategic movement link...

Does the special connectedness between the offmap areas count for this purpose? I believed it didn't that it was only a special form of movement for ships that used strategic movement capability. But in the rules it does say this movement between offmap areas is strategic movement.

Also if you say it does count as a stratigic movement link.. the off map special movement rules also say it can only be done if BOTH empires are at war. So if this is before the Federation or Gorn are at war, would this offmap route for diplomatic income still be allowed?

I would point out, if you can use the offmap route then the only way to prevent diplomatic income to the Kzinti would be to cut off the Federation or Gorn capital hexes.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 01:45 pm: Edit

A point to add to the above questions:

Diplomats can use strategic movement even though races are not at war. Thus, I'd says that diplomatic income can be received through off map areas even before races are at wars.

I agree with Mike's conclusion that the only way to stop the Zin from getting diplomatic income from the Feds is to cut off the Fed capital from the Fed offmap area.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 11:19 am: Edit

CL23 Ruling, 2010 Master Rule Book Clarification Question:
________________________________________
Quote:
Q1305: As the defender of a planet, can I use directed damage
against both an SAF and a ground combat ship?
A: Directed damage against the ground combat ships does not count
against the limit of one directed damage attack. An attack on an SAF would
count against this limit. So, you could direct against both, in either
order.
________________________________________


I am confused by this ruling. I thought that you could only make one directed damage attack per turn under (302.5).

(520.41) states that "The defending forces may use their one directed-damage attack to disrupt the SAF".

Under (521.0) Muliple G Attacks may be made against PDUs or Bases subject to other listed rules in (521.0).
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 11:58 am: Edit

Can a foreign admiral (316) add a ship to a force commanded by a ship of a different empire?

Example Force:
D7C (command), 8*D7, Lyran BC+ADM.

Can the Lyran ADM be used to add a Klingon ship? A Lyran ship? The letter of the rule (316.21) seems to say yes to both.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Thomas:

See rule 521.373, which specifies that a directed damage attack against a ship conducting a ground attack (along with its escorts) does not count against the limit in 302.5.

Cheers,
Jason
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 04:40 pm: Edit

If so then (521.373) and (520.41) are in conflict with each other as they state the opposite very clearly.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 09:11 pm: Edit

ThomasM, I beg to differ in that (540.21) allows for '...other directed damage attacks are excepted from the limit of one attack...' and then gives the example of troop ships.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 10:54 pm: Edit

Thomas,

I think your straining at gnats on this one. The rule is just pointing out that if you use Directed Damage against the SAF, that it counts as the normally allowed one directed damage attack.

So you can attack the SAF or you can attack the scout tug he put on the line, but not both. However all the other 'exceptions' to the one DD attack apply such as Troop Ships approaching a target, or Penal ships, or targets of Stasis ships also have a special rule.

So the general rule is 1 DD attack... the SAF rule is just pointing out that if you disrupt the SAF with your 12 points its considered a DD attack, and its NOT one of the exempted sorts. Believe me had the rule there not been specific it would have been argued SAF's are mostly troop ships.. and hence you should get DD attacks on them in addition.

The more specific rules such as free DD against Troopships, SAF targets, and such would apply. The rules are not opposed, they are complimentary, with the troop ship forming a specific exception to the general.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, December 20, 2009 - 09:06 am: Edit

2010 Master Rule Book Clarification Question:

This questions concerns LTTs (516.2) and specifically the Klingon D5G (516.32)

The original rule states that the D5G can perform missions D, F, H, K, M or N.

Since the publication of additional expansions, (516.32) has not been updated.

Could a D5G be used to transport other pods in an inactive state similar to a theater transport?
Also, could a D5G perform missions P, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, and AB.

Note that X, Y, Z, AA, and AB are tug missions not previously designated in (509.1) and (516.2) but that I suggested their inclussion in the 2010 Rulebook as they require a Tug to perform such operations.

QUESTIONS DOWNLOADED TO THIS POINT
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, December 21, 2009 - 07:59 am: Edit

Tug Mission Questions

I have a Gorn Tug/LTT/DDT in Federation space. This Tug can reach out an out of supply Federation Fleet. Can the Gorn Unit be designated as Mission U. Haul Drone Bombardment?

Same question to any non drone bombadment empire supporting a drone bombardment empire.

Additional Information for consideration of the above.
(442.82) States that Lyran Tugs maybe used to transport KR spare parts to the Romulans.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Tug Mission Questions

(516.2)O. Can the Hydran LTT be used to carry the 20 Ship Turns of Supplies along with the Fighter Conveyor Pallet?

(509.1)O. Can the Hydran MTG be used to carry the 20 Ship Turns of Supplies along with the Fighter Conveyor Pallet?

FEAR, the above questions and the questions in this post
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, December 21, 2009 - 07:59 am: Edit
are part of the Master Rule Book 509.1 Updates.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 03:20 pm: Edit

FEAR, please disregard (516.2) O Question. Already been answered.

Thanks
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 11:37 pm: Edit

Thomas, with the MTG being a late war NCA-tug, I doubt the circumstances that allowed the original mission to be done would resurface until after the GW is over...
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 11:59 pm: Edit

It would have to be a scenario rule in any case. The supply tug is designated as one of the TUG's in the General War OOB and its not transferable under the rules as they exist currently.

A scenario might put that capability onto another tug.. but that is not what is being asked I imagine.
By Chad Schrieber (Trianglemoon) on Monday, December 28, 2009 - 01:36 pm: Edit

New player, needing a nudge in the right direction--
I have read the rules to the best of my ability, and I've done some searching on this forum, and have not found an answer to my question.


I am confused on production and the OOB. Rules in the Production section indicate that the costs to build the OOB items are indicated on the OOB, but I'm not finding that. It also suggests that a player is not bound to the OOB builds.

For example, the Federation construction (702.1) for Y171F: DN, CA, 3xNCL, 3xFF.

Question 1: Do I simply track their costs through the SIT?

Question 2: Does this also indicate my maximum construction capacity for that turn? If not, how is that determined?

Also, on the SIT, I see some items that have Construction Costs listed as "Schedule: 5", etc, and others that are more complex like "xx + 5" which I'm assuming is a more complex build, where xx may be another ship (or hull) type, like CL.

Question 3: Can an example be given to me on how a more complex line item can be read (i.e. what it "takes" to get to the final product)?

Question 4: How long does it take for a build to complete? (I'm assuming the OOB construction allows particular hull types, and modifications to that are handled through EP only, and does not delay deployment. But that all depends on if my supposition on Question 2 is correct...)

I think I'm just missing a fundamental building block that will make this all fall into place for me. I don't need a redirect to specific rules, but perhaps a slightly different explanation. I simply may be over-estimating how much control I have over my production lines.

[edited: I should note, I was initially given the impression from a friend that if I had the EPs, I could build something with them, but after reading the rules, I don't think that's the case. So, some of this confusion may be related to competing philosophies.)]

Thank you very much for your time. I hope to pass what I learn on to other players in our gaming group.

tm
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, December 28, 2009 - 01:42 pm: Edit

deleted - official answers posted
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, December 28, 2009 - 01:46 pm: Edit

deleted - official answers posted
By Chad Schrieber (Trianglemoon) on Monday, December 28, 2009 - 02:04 pm: Edit

Thomas,
Thank you very much. I'd like to repeat that back to confirm I get it.

Q2: 8 ships are listed, but I couldn't decide to make that 8 DN (assuming I had the EP to pay for the builds). I'm limited to a DN hull, a CA hull, 3 CL hulls, and 3 FF hulls, correct? But, I have some flexibility on the specific designations (I could make the CA an SR, paying 13EP for the finished product).

Overbuilds are still limited to what is in the pipeline, correct? Or rather, could I choose to spend an extra 50EP to build 5 more NCLs (in your example)? I wasn't sure where the 6 NCLs came from.

Again, thanks very much. I'll do my best to limit questions to what I can't discern on my own.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, December 28, 2009 - 02:17 pm: Edit

Chad Schrieber:
I am confused on production and the OOB. Rules in the Production section indicate that the costs to build the OOB items are indicated on the OOB, but I'm not finding that. It also suggests that a player is not bound to the OOB builds.

For example, the Federation construction (702.1) for Y171F: DN, CA, 3xNCL, 3xFF.

Q1: Do I simply track their costs through the SIT?

A1: You use the SITs now. This is something that will be changed in the 2010 edition. The SITs are your friend and if you don’t have them, you can download them from this site.

Q2: Does this also indicate my maximum construction capacity for that turn? If not, how is that determined?

A2: Yes and no. In your example for Y171F you can produce DN, CA, 3xNCL, 3xFF within allowable substitutions. An example of an allowable substitution is a CC for a DN. Normal production is limited by the production schedule. There are things such as Overbuilds (431.30) and accelerated production (431.37) that expand this to a limited extent.

Q2.1: Also, on the SIT, I see some items that have Construction Costs listed as "Schedule: 5", etc, and others that are more complex like "xx + 5" which I'm assuming is a more complex build, where xx may be another ship (or hull) type, like CL.

A2.1: The “Schedule: 5” is what the unit cost to build from the schedule. The “xx+5” like the Federation NVL which is “For NCL: 7+12” is an allowable substitution per the rules for that specific unit, in this case, a carrier. You use one of your allowed slots for an NCL and spend 7 points for the base hull, which, in this case is 5 for the hull and 2 for the carrier. The additional 12 is for the 6 fighter factors that are operated from the carrier.

Q3: Can an example be given to me on how a more complex line item can be read (i.e. what it "takes" to get to the final product)?

A3: See A2.1 above. I think that answers what you are asking.

Q4: How long does it take for a build to complete? (I'm assuming the OOB construction allows particular hull types, and modifications to that are handled through EP only, and does not delay deployment. But that all depends on if my supposition on Question 2 is correct...)

A4: New construction, which this process is all about, is placed in step 2B3 of the SOP. There is no lead time for the construction as this is a simplification of the construction of new ships. Yeah, it takes longer than the instant that you pay for a ship and it appears on the map, but there are certain aspects of a large game such as this that need simplification.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, December 28, 2009 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Chad, see reply in general discussion.