January - Feburary 2010 Archive

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, January 01, 2010 - 08:28 am: Edit

2010 Master Rulebook Question

(431.23) States that each SB can produce 6 PFs per turn and each BATS or DefBtn can build 2 PFs per turn.

How many PFs can a Base Station (444.0), Sector Base (452.0) and X Versions of all bases (525.4), (444.33) X Base Station, (453.23) X Sector Bases produce?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 01, 2010 - 11:08 am: Edit

Thomas: Several problems here....

1. The term "master" is never ever ever used for F&E products.

2. 2010 has its own topic and if you want it done in 2010, put it in the 2010 topic, not this one.

Now, as it happens:

Base station = 0
battle station = 2
sector base = 4
starbase = 6

X-version of above, same (or maybe none at all)
By Chad Schrieber (Trianglemoon) on Friday, January 01, 2010 - 04:21 pm: Edit

Question about Klingon Setup.

Several of the fleets include 3xF5Q. I've found where F5Q is listed out as an F5L and 2 F5s. I assumed the 3x indicated it was a group. But then I found one without that designation.

I ran out of counters doing the setup with the assumption I made (1 F5L, 2 F5), so tripling most of those deployments doesn't seem right, either.

Can someone shed some light on this for me? Many thanks!

Chad
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, January 01, 2010 - 04:56 pm: Edit

3xF5Q would also be 3xF5L and 6xF5. You could also use 3 of the F5Q counters.

In the base game without extra counters you need to use the F5Q counters. The option most of us use is to buy more counters.


Hello,

My name is Ryan and I'm addicted to cardboard. Welcome to the club.
By John Doucette (Pbi) on Saturday, January 02, 2010 - 09:58 am: Edit

Chad, when it says 3xF5Q, it means 3 of those F5Q squadrons. The breakdown of an F5Q into an F5L and 2xF5 is listed so that in combat, you know what the individual ships are.

It is definitely not a group.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, January 02, 2010 - 12:56 pm: Edit

Supply Question for (320.25), (537.6)V and (539.7). Could a theater transport, e.g. Klingon F5T, be used to provide supplies to a ship or group of ships (read PTF and PFs) on a special raid.

Rules for consideration:
(539.72) states that FFTs can't use a pod or pallet to transport EPs or Supplies, but the entries on the SITs allow various theater transports to transport a number of EPs.

(537.6)V states that Tugs and LTTs can haul drones for use on in drone bombardment raids.

(539.73) states that FFTs can haul 6 pts worth of Drone Bombardment.
By Chad Schrieber (Trianglemoon) on Sunday, January 03, 2010 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Thanks Ryan. I don't have any F5Q counters, alas. Someone recommended using the 3F5 counters, so I'll probably go that route for now. If it appears to become a problem, I'll see what I can do to correct it.

Thanks again!
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Sunday, January 03, 2010 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Chad,

The 3F5 counters are the F5Q counters.

Notice that the 3F5 counters are valued at 16. That's 2 F5 (5pts each) and 1 F5L (6pts).

(Later expansions have a 3F5B counter that represents three standard F5 frigates, but none of those are in the basic game.)

Or, if you buy like, 37 copies of the game, you could use nothing but individual F5 and F5L counters, with stacks that reach up a foot and a half high.

Hi, my name is Kevin, and I'm addicted to cardboard...
By Chad Schrieber (Trianglemoon) on Sunday, January 03, 2010 - 09:15 pm: Edit

Thanks Kevin.
I realized the factor was 16 (not 15) a couple of hours ago, after my previous post. My griend has 2 copies, and I plan on getting the next edition, so we'll be almost a tenth of the way there...

Thanks again!
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, January 03, 2010 - 09:30 pm: Edit

The 2010 version will have more counters 

Hi, my name is Thomas and I'm addicted to cardboard...........
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, January 03, 2010 - 11:06 pm: Edit

Just so y'all feel at home...

My name is Mike and I am addicted to cardboard. 50k+ in F&E alone.
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Sunday, January 03, 2010 - 11:10 pm: Edit

And to make matters worse... I always play using Mike's set and his counters - but I'm still sitting at 30K+ counters of my own and can't wait for F&E 2010 and many more counters.

My name is Tony and I'm addicted to cardboard.
By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Sunday, January 03, 2010 - 11:54 pm: Edit

My friend and SFU teacher's counter box is 4 feet by 2 feet by 8 inches and is so tightly packed the lid barely fits on it.

Mine is a SFB shipping box that is just barely full.

My name is Jon and I have cardboard addiction envy.


Just so I have an actual question: Just what is an SAS? I have a counter or four for them but I have no idea what they actually are and can't find a corresponding ship. (My friend and I are running a general wars campaign with SFB battles instead)
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, January 04, 2010 - 12:06 am: Edit

SAS = Small Aux Scout
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, January 04, 2010 - 07:36 am: Edit

Don't ask questions again. It confuses things when I process them. Questions up to the end of 2009 are almost done and will be posted shortly.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, January 05, 2010 - 12:44 pm: Edit

Q&A: (any not listed here have been pushed up to staff level and will be posted later, don't ask again)

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.

Q: (436.0), (312.323), and (525.1) Can a B9 carry one or two SFGs?

A: Please ask in the SIT topic as it needs to be determined there.


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.

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 Auxiliaries 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.

Michael Parker:

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 battle hex 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 battle hex, you see if a legal route exists.. it’s determined completely 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 quandary. 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 battle hex. Most Reserve fleets are around 13SE or less (you can get more of course) 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 battle hex 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 in route.

So here is the rub.. a single force of 4 X-ships including an X-scout it sitting on a battle hex. 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 battle hex"
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 errata 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.

A: The "cannot move there at all" means "your whole reserve got stuck in the hex where the X-ships met you."

Q: In CL#40 Supplement with a ruling by FEAR on Romulan building of MBs or OPBs in their off map area is in conflict with a ruling in CL#38 allowing the building of MBs in this off map area.
Please resolve this conflict.

A: Hmmm… (506.3) is specific that bases cannot be built in the Romulan off map area. MBs and OPBs are bases and as such cannot be built or moved into the off map area as this is the same as building one there. If you disagree please request a bump up to FEDS as this is your FEAR appeal on this issue.

Q: 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 from 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’ unfortunately 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 “... 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 explicitly state on this issue.

A: The part you are looking for is in (205.11) “The reaction to a given enemy unit can occur immediately after a pulse of movement by that unit or (203.64) after a later non-moving pulse of that unit.” It does not specify moving towards or away, just that a non-moving pulse was expended. A non-moving pulse is not moving away as it would have to increase the range to be moving away. Hence, it is eligible for a reaction movement response.

Q: 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 off-map 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 off-map areas is strategic movement.

Also if you say it does count as a strategic 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 off-map route for diplomatic income still be allowed?

I would point out; if you can use the off-map route then the only way to prevent diplomatic income to the Kzinti would be to cut off the Federation or Gorn capital hexes.

A: (207.291) limits ships from moving from one off map area to another. Diplomatic income is delivered by non-ship means via strategic movement; hence you are unable at this time to cut this income off from move from one off-map area to another.

Dave Butler:

Q: 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" referred 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.)

A: While (503.64) does not explicitly permit the Klingons to capture hexes 2618, 2619, and 2718, it does infer so. Since these three hexes are not considered adjacent to the Federation by rule (503.62) and rule (601.161) does not allow any Klingon units from occupying any Neutral Zone hexes, turn one occupation is not allowed. Turn two and beyond only allow 2618, 2619, and 2718 to be occupied by released fleets and new construction.

Q: 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).

A: (320.41) specifically refers to (314.25) not (314.28), barring any change by the designer, then this is what it refers to, not (314.28). As such, if you are the defender of a raid and you do not oppose the raid, then you deserve what you get when the raider uses his G factor to attack you.
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
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 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)

A: 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. Transferring the modules to another unit will cost 1 EP to move them. This takes in account all the paperwork to process to justify leaving the FRD undefended… 

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?
Thanks in advance.

A: Agreed, (318.13) in Advanced Operations, does indeed change (309.2) from a maximum of 12 factors of drone bombardment to a maximum of 3 drone units in the drone bombardment role. So, yes, indeed you could have a DND, LAD, SAD drone bombardment squadron as the Kzinti player.

Lawrence Bergen:

Q. Okay I was looking at the Annex 756 and the rules in 513.121 and 513.136 to determine if auxiliaries are considered ships. It seems they are not, correct? In the GW opening scenario are the auxiliaries 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 General War (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.


Jason Langdon:

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?

A: The number of conversions that can take place in a hex are limited by the number of starbases present (433.11). It does not matter whether these are 4+ economic point conversions or just 3 economic point or less conversions. The number of conversions is what is limited by the number of starbases. The number of 4+ economic point conversions is limited by rule (433.12) and (433.15). Note that (450.1) allows races to build both minor and major conversions facilities to increase this capability.

Paul Middleton:

Q: 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?

A: PDUs take 10 points of damage to destroy by normal damage and 5 points by using a mauler per (508.122).

Graham Stewart Wardle:

Q: 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!

A: Rule (445) is in Fighter Operations on page 16 and was for some time mislabeled as section (443)

Peter Bonfanti:

Q: 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?
A: I need more details. When was and the situation of the opening of supply? When was and the situation of the closing of supply?

I am going to give some generalizations to be your guide. (509.53) refers to the supply tug re-establishing supply. Supply is only evaluated at certain times in the SOP. This is the only time you can see if the tug is back in supply. If it is in supply then it has its stores replenished.

Q: 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?

A: There would have to be a Homeless supply line (410.5) established or an Expeditionary fleet (411.7) established to leave the hex and operate. The forces, per (410.25) would be in supply as long as they are in the same hex as the friendly base.

Todd Jahnke:

Q: 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?

A: Part 1: This is a tough one. (537.13) is clear on what happens on the planet during a rebellion, but is not clear on the strategic ramifications of a rebellion. Since, in open rebellion, everything is disrupted I am going to rule that this planet cannot be used as either a supply point or a retrograde point until the rebellion is suppressed.

Part 2: (537.133) states that combat is ignored per (301.2). The conqueror needs to come put the rebellion down. I would suggest very violently, teaching those subject races a lesson.

Robert Padilla:

Q: 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 Supply 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 Deficit Spending, since it is not in effect a Partial Supply Grid?

A: By definition (413.1) a Main Supply Grid is a network of bases and planets that are connected to the Capital hex or a valid off map area. There can be, by definition, a maximum of two Main Supply Grids; one connected to the Capital, and one connected to a valid off map area. Economic points can move freely within a Main Supply Grid to do various activities such as repairs (420.0), PDU self generation (433.42), base repair (420.6), conversions at non-capital starbases (433.0), etc. If two main grids are separated and then joined then the Economic Points would again move freely between them and at the instant of the rejoining become one pool that the now one Main Grid can draw from.
If using (447.0) Advanced Deficit Spending you will be able to borrow only from the capital connected Main Supply Grid.

Thomas Mathews:

Q: 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 relevant 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 cannot find anything regarding a base that is not attacked at all or is attacked but not crippled.

A: A base upgrade finishes after the next player turn on step 2B3. Note that the new level of base will not have any extra repair capacity since repairs occur on step 2A2, but will be able to do later base operations allowed at the new base level after step 2B3.

Q: (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 maneuver it into place to be installed on the starbase.

A: Per a ruling by SVC at Origins 2009 3xTheatre Transports equals one Tug in capability. Therefore, 3xT class Klingon ships can do one SFG installation.

Q: 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.

A: See (515.54) “Escorts must be the same race as the carrier they are formed into a group with.” So, no, they cannot use a Federation escort in the Kzinti group.


Paul Middleton:

Q1: 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 uncrippled BATS.

A1: Think of each SID as its own sub-unit of the Starbase in damage resolution. So, if you score 3 points of damage (per 308.84) on a SB and there are no other units in the combat then the Starbase must take a SID.

Q2: 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?

A2: All Mobile Bases with a scenario setup are setup stored at a Starbase unless otherwise specified by the scenario special rules or setup notes.

Peter Bonfanti:

Q: The ten points to devastate a planet is really twenty unless you have a mauler, correct?

A: A planet is devastated by 10 points of damage (508.21). If it is yours then you can resolve 10 points of damage on it. If it is your opponents and you want to devastate it with directed damage (302.52) then it will cost twice the normal damage, 20 points.

Paul Middleton:

Q: 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.

A: Peter Hill made a great retreat response and I am going to use most of his response and wanted to give him credit.
Since this is part of a sector scenario, specifically Gale Force (608.0) sector D (a single sector), (608.48) applies and it states that if a unit retreats out of the sector it is irrevocably transferred to the other sector. We need to keep this in mind when calculating the retreat options here.

Step 1
No neutral territory adjacent, so all hexes still 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 one. 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 eliminate the capital, and will probably just leave you with 2708 (technically you could do a Fighting Retreat into the capital but that might not be wise in this situation).

Todd Jahnke:

Q: 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?

A: (531.21) limits called up police ships from anywhere but the Main Supply Grid and part of that race’s territory. So, no, you cannot do this.

Bill Carroll:

Q: Got a pursuit rule question. Can a crippled ship for the defender be placed in the formation bonus position during a pursuit battle?

A: Yes, a retreat battle force is formed per (307.3) and that allows one ship to be in the formation bonus.

Thomas Mathews:

Q1: Does a Prime Team on defense (534.3) take up a slot under (534.11)? There is no mention of them taking up a Espionage & Sabotage raid slot for defensive operations.

A1: (534.3) implies that more than one item can be defended at a time and does not specifically limit the number of Prime Teams used. There is no limit on the number of Prime Teams on defensive missions.

Q2: Does a Prime Team on defense (534.3) cost the two Economic Points each turn under (534.13)? There is no mention of defensive missions costing Economic Points.

A2: (534.3) does not say specifically that defensive Prime Team missions cost Economic Points. So, no, they do not cost any Economic Points.

Q3: 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 has 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?

A3: Yes, you can use any scout function ship in the free scout slot for a reserve fleet per both (308.53) and (507.2). In this case you can also use the escorts as part of a Battle Group (315) in the same reserve fleet. The actual carrier group for combat purposes is not formed until combat in step 5-3C and reserve movement is in step 4 of the Sequence of Play.

Q4: 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.

A4: Since all other X-bases are a 50% increase from the parent unit it follows that the X-base version of both the Sector Base (repair of 6 a turn) and the Base Station (repair of 2 a turn, 3 after Y171) would then be X-Sector Base (repair of 9 a turn) and X-Base Station (repair of 3 a turn, 4 a turn after Y171).

Q: 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?

A: See (453.13) the OPB can be upgraded to either at the same rates as a MB upgrade to that type of base would be.

Q: 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. (emphasis mine)

A: Good catch! It also implies that the Klingon diplomatic ships can also move. But, it does not allow the diplomats to start outside of their deployment area unless the scenario special rules allow it.

Q: (320.21) says I can use up to 3 ships in a drone raid.
(320.311) says I can move those on map ships up to 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.

A: (320.24) states that special raid ships can come from the Raid Pool or ships in regular service. This is not an “and”, so it is not allowed.

Q: (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.

A: No, it is a variant of the B10 and must be produced, in the General War and other standard scenarios, by the 5 Economic Point for a 1d6 roll a turn.

Bill Carroll:

Q1: 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.

A1: 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.

Q2: Where is the rule about transferring free fighter factors to free PF factors? I’ve seen it somewhere and I can't find it anywhere. Can we and how do we convert free fighter factors to free PF factors?

A2: This rule is (442.21) which is self explanatory on the process.

Q3: If a Klingon SFG 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?

A3: See (312.27) for the answer. Which is no you can't work your up the escorts.

Paul Middleton:

Q1: We are about to play Sector D from Winds of Fire (617). The rules for Sector D state that the Klingons get 54 economic points 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.

A1: The area in the sector itself contains 14 provinces, 2 major and 3 minor planets for a total base economy of 47. This leaves only 7 points left over and to make it even say 2 points are from a province and 5 are from a planet from the capital. So, planetary production from this sector is 24 economic points.

Q2: The rules state that the Feds get 31 economic points from the Capital so we are assuming that all of that is from planets. Is this correct?

A2: Yes, that is a safe assumption.

Q3: Is there a limit on the number of X-ships which can be produced by substitution each turn? I see a rule on conversions and overbuilds, but nothing on substitution limits for X-ships.

A3: (523.111) states that X-ships replace non-X-ships of the equivalent hull type on the production schedule. You are limited by the limited amount of XTPs you have and your production schedule.

Q: 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?

A: This has been previously answered. The XTPs and EPs are separate and need to be accounted for separately. You can choose to use deficit spending on EPs as this is allowed by (430.6) or you could spend XTPs instead of EPs per (523.126).

Q: 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.

A: Once an adjacent race enters a Neutral Zone and does not accept interment then a state of war exists between both races and fleet activations are based on that.

Q: In my current game we are about to enter turn 7 without a Klingon 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.

A: The second to last sentence of (602.49B) covers this. It is the section that is about what is not allowed when at limited war. It says “Anything not otherwise covered.” This means no, the ships in the Home and 3rd Fleets cannot be converted as they are not expressly permitted by (602.49A) to do so.

Peter Hill:

Q: (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!

A: It may appear so, but SFB and F&E are not the same. They are vastly different, especially in the amount of time available to players in game time. SFB represents only minutes of time while F&E represents months of time. Different periods of time give different results with units such as bases.

Q: 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?

A: Fighter Operations

Thomas Mathews:

Q: (445.11) States that a starbase can have 2 Fighter Storage Depots, and a BATS can have one. How many can a Base Station (444.0) have?

A: Errata from 6/30/07 states that Base Stations can have one.

Q: 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

A: You are correct; the correct reference should be for 5-8K not 5-8F.

Q: (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 Battalion (read PDU).

(509.1)K states to deliver or upgrade defense battalions (read PDU). see (508.32; or to upgrade 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)?

A: It is what it is. The LTT is not as effective at PDU development as the Theater Transports.

Q: (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.

A: It is not the survey ship or the scout that is the restriction. It is the diamond symbol which is scout channels that is the limitation. So, yes, they do count with new construction. Conversions do not count. (432.41)

Q: (502.63) states that original 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?

A: No a colony does not get free PF Flotillas. (446.3) does not specifically allow free PF Flotillas.

Q: 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).

A: The directed attack on the Ground combat ship conducting a ground assault does not count against the one directed attack for that round. (521.373) The directed attack on the SAF does count.

Marc Elwinger:

Q: What product is Rule 319.0 from? (Something about independent fighter ops/raids) Advanced Operations ends at 318, Planetary Operations starts at 320. I checked Fighter and Carrier Operations as the logical place and don't see it. There are 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 Special raids.

A: It is in the back of Fighter Operations on the same page as the Fighter Storage Depot rule (445.0)

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...]

Ted Fay:

Q: 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.

A: (542.16) expressly prohibits production of obsolete types of survey ships. Not a ruling, but a rule.

Q: Lyran and Kzinti forces face off across the NZ. Lyran Home is in 504. Kzinti Counts is in 703. Kzinti Duke's is in 903. It's alliance turn 1.

From 703 Counts Kzinti FF moves into 603 to try to claim the NZ hex. Lyran Home reacts one Lyran FF by extended reaction into 603 to counter. Kzinti 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, Kzinti 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 Kzinti 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 Kzinti 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.

A: Reaction movement is a special type of movement the non-phasing player uses during the operational movement phase (205.1). As such it is subject to pinning (203.5) specifically (203.51) which states that once a unit is pinned it is done with its movement, this includes reaction movement. There are no “ripple” reactions. Once the reaction is stopped by pinning or counter-pinning the reaction is finished, even if it had another hex available.

Lee Hanna:

Q: 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?"

A: War is declared where there is an action that causes that declaration by the rules. In your case as long as you do an action to change their minds before you do an action to cause war it would have a chance to neuter them before your hordes of DSF ships cross the Federation border.

Kevin Howard:

Q: 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?

A: Battles with the Orions in (504.35) are resolved during the regular SOP as such your enemy could reserve to one of these battles. After you are defeated, in this example, the enemy would then either retreat or fight the Orion for you.

Mike Dowd:

Q: (450.111) states that there can only be 1 minor shipyard 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?

A: Since you are playing a full game and not a sector scenario it does not apply to you. This is for those that are playing small portions of the larger later in the war scenarios.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, January 05, 2010 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Rulings:

Ted Fay:

Q: (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.

Paul Middleton:

Q: 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?

R: Step 3 (511.53) of a Capital Assault is done one time. This is to divide up the normal good order ships into the mobile and static forces to be distributed. Any cripples generated by combat are placed in the system boxes with static forces as they are created. This should be done during Step 8 (511.58)

Robert Padilla:

Q: I have a question about Annexing provinces/planets (448.2) and the Corp of Engineers (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 Corp of Engineers 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 Corp of Engineers rules setup a new method for annexing a planet and province. It could be argued that the more specific rule (Corp of Engineers) would override the rules in 448.2 for annexing planets/provinces IF a Corp of Engineer unit is present.

Also, 541.34C makes reference to Hospital Ships and Diplomats and how they can do the same thing as a Corp of Engineers, 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 similar function to the Corp of Engineers for captured planets?)?

The problem I see here is that with a Corp of Engineers 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 Corp of Engineers 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 Corp of Engineers, but it looks legal on the surface.

R: The Corp of Engineers (541.34C) effect on annexation only counts for the planet and the province it is in. This is only for single planet provinces. In multiple planet provinces, only the planet the Corp of Engineer unit is at is counted.

As for the reference to Hospital Ships (451.0) and Diplomats (540.0), this was missed in the final write up of the rules and should be flagged for removal in the 2010 edition. I have posted such a line item in the 2010 topic.

William Jockusch

Q: What happens if both sides do a fighting retreat from the same battle into the same hex?

R: While rare, this could theoretically happen. In this case both sides would use a BIR of 0 and then retreat again.

Paul Middleton

Q: In Winds of Fire (617) 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?

R: Actually, (617.D41) says they get 2.3 economic points from the neutral zone hexes from Sector A, B, and C. When you total the 16 hexes from Sector A, the 5 hexes and 1 planet from Sector B, and the 3 hexes and 1 planet from Sector C you get 6.8 economic points. Hence, we have a 4.5 economic point shortfall. Sector D has an additional 16 hexes of neutral zone hexes, 3.2 economic points plus Boswell Index for another 1 economic point. The total should be 6.8 economic points plus the 3.2 from Sector D for a total of 10 economic points from neutral zones and planets within those zones.

Matthew Smith:

Q: If one force is entirely destroyed in ESSC, who gets the salvage?

R: There is some confusion as to how this works. This confusion goes with some old language in (439.16) that refers to the old method of small ship combat. The new method, designed by FEDS, says it no longer goes to the victor.

Thomas Mathews:

Q: (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?

R: They are base modules and as such would use the base rate. But, like bases, one free fighter factor is one base fighter factor. You would be better off using your free fighters for your carriers and paying for base fighters.

Q: (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 (523.412), and STX (452.15) resolve voluntary and directed SIDS damage at?

R: Starbases have 8/4 SIDS steps for 4.5 each, Sector Bases have 6/3 at 4 each, Battle Stations have 3/0 for 4 each. The SBX (523.411) has 54/27 and at 4.5 each would be 12/6 SIDS steps. The STX (452.15) at 36/18 would have 8/4 SIDS steps at 4.5 each. The BTX (523.412) at 18/9 would have 4/2 SIDS steps at 4.5 each. Damage to each step would be at the standard 18 point rate using directed damage, 9 with a Mauler, and 4.5 voluntary.

Q: In our current game an empire wants to place PDUs on a developing colony. Is this legal?

R: Until a colony is fully established at the end of the player’s third turn of development it is not a valid location for PDU/PGB placement. The first time a PDU/PGB could be deployed is the turn after the development is finished.

Q: Can a developed colony in the area of an unreleased fleet have PDUs placed on it before the fleet is released?

R: Unreleased fleet areas cannot have PDUs placed on existing planets before the fleet is released (600.321), so it would follow that a colony would not be able to get PDUs either.

Paul Middleton:

Q: 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.

R: We need to look at the rules for Maulers and damaging escorts. Maulers (308.4) state that you can use them to attack targets at 1:1. Also some assumptions nee d to be made: X-Ship is a 10-point ship (see rule 523.312 if not), X-Ship is NOT in the Form Bonus Box (see rule 523.315 if not), and X-Ship is in supply (see rule 523.316 if not).

There is a reference to (308.111) which is damage to escorts (note: this is for all escorts, not just carrier). To resolve damage normally on a carrier escort (with the escort bonus) you consider the calculation (Uncrippled Defense Factor *2+Escort Bonus)+(Crippled Defense Factor *2). With a 10-pt mauler you use (Uncrippled Defense Factor + Crippled Defense Factor) while (Uncrippled Defense Factor + Crippled Defense Factor) CVT/CVT+ requires true klingon pods and not loaned lyran ones.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 11:10 am: Edit

Ah, IC. Yeah, that is abusive as you would be circumnavigating the limits on carriers.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Um, converting a TGA to a CVT counts as a medium carrier build, so you're not getting around the CV limits that way.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Its not the CV limits.. the Klinks have 2 per turn.. its the limits on Lyran Pods. allowing the Lyrans to crank out 2xCV pods every turn or even every year to gift to the klingons for making CVT's is the issue.

In effect its another 2 + 12 ep a turn the Lyrans can provide the Klingons. That is the abusiveness I see in it.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 12:42 am: Edit

Note that the Lyran KVH has 6 factors in one pod while the Klingon CVT has two pods with 5/6, so it couldn't be traded in for the CVT counter...(plus Lyran pod limit)

Way I see it, is that the Klingons can have 3 CVTs and and 3 Tug+pod combos...which are replacable...(TugA+VAP does not equal CVT either)...
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 04:24 pm: Edit

No the Lyrans have a 6 factor pallet and a KVH pod which is a 3 factor pod which is compatible with klingon tugs.

There are the
VP+ which is the CV Pallet 6 FF
KVH K-type med CV Pod 3 FF used in pair
KVP K-type Hvy CV Pod 6 FF

The KVH Pods are the ones I am saying marry up with a TGA to make a CVT+ not the VP+ nor the KVP.

And the Klingons can have way more CVT/CVT+'s all they do is take CV Pods and a TUGA and just make it a CVT(+) then rebuild the CV Pods. Any turn they don't do two med CV builds they can do this, then build the pods the next turn. I'm NOT saying they should.. they could. But if they are getting gifted Lyran pods for this.. they might as well, at least until they cannot put more fleet tugs into CVT's
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Ack, forgot they added those...

Still, I don't think the Klingons can do the perma-conversion with Lyran pods...
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 07:54 am: Edit

Plus your limited by one set of Tug podsw per year!

As it's a permanent conversion, I don't think it is allowed to convert a lent Lyran pods into a permanent Klingon pod.

Lend and own are different things!
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 09:15 am: Edit

SOP question.

I can find no mention of placing PDU's outside of the capital hex in (105.P) beyond the purchase of PDUs (433.42)in 2B3.

However, (508.32) they must be delivered either by operational movement or strategic movement if deployed outside the capital. When adding to a planet's existing PDU's it's generally a non issue as the PDU begins to function immediately.

However, when placing the initial PDU as either a garrison or to replace the original lost PDU's this becomes an issue under the following set of circumstances.

I send a flett that includes a Tug carrying a PDU to recapture one of my original planets during the operational movement phase. After combat has concluded and I have recaptured the hex, when can I place the PDU on my Tug? Can I place it in the Strategic Movement phase of the same player turn under (508.33) or must I wait a full turn because the SOP only mentions PDUs in 2B3?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 - 05:30 pm: Edit

I have done a bunch of looking trying to resolve whether a PDU can be selected as a "flag" for purposes of allowing two or fewer other units to withdraw before combat.

AFAICT, the last activity on this was on May 12, 2009 based on an appeal by Kevin Howard on January 20, 2009. I've reproduced them below. Has there been a ruling on this?

If not, then a ruling should be made soon so that the answer can make it into the F&E 2010 rules.

My two cents: A PDU *should* be allowed to be a "flag", even though it has a zero command rating, in order to enable two or fewer ships to withdraw behind the planet's defenses. This result is consistent with the result later in combat that a fleet can retreat behind PDUs after a round of combat (even though withdrawal and retreat are distinct). This result also makes sense given that the PDUs and their fighters can "cover" the withdrawing forces.

Also, the result is consistent with withdrawing behind a BATS - which does have a command rating. Heck, a BATS can't even move, but a PDUs fighters can move and therefore are better able to "cover" retreating units. Seems to me that relying only on the "command rating" to withdraw, instead of looking at how the units can cover, is artifical.

See Kevin Howard's reasoning below for further details.

If there's an answer already, please advise and I apologize for wasting space.
________________________________________
Quote:

From May 12, 2009:

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!

Question below:


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.
________________________________________
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 - 06:00 pm: Edit

In reference to PDU's being flagships, I will point out that the 0 CR argument is very overreaching to me. I would also point out N/A does not exist as a CR listing for anything that I could find.

If all it took were a 0CR the following things from the SITS could be flagships.

Repair Pod
CPF/CPX
FHL
FTL
LAS
FTS
SAS
APT
CONVOY
COM CON
Prime Team
SAF
COE
Mil Convoy
FRD(+)
PRD
FRX
Ftr-Module
Ftr-Depot
PF Module
PGB
PDU
Col Base
Colony
Minor Shipyards
Diplomat
Mega fighter Markers (All types)

I do not believe the use of 0 for CR in the SITS means its eligible to be a command ship. Its certainly a huge stretch to say that. In fact looking at the CR 0 things, I think a much closer stretch would be to say 0 does indeed mean N/A.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 - 06:21 pm: Edit

How can a BATS with no fighters "cover" for withdrawing ships, allowing a single FF to escape before combat, but a PDU with tactically mobile fighters cannot do the same?

If a whole fleet can "retreat" behind a PDU and deny the enemy pursuit, why cannot two ships "withdraw" behind a PDU against opposition using the same PDU as cover?

I think the issue should not be addressed with respect to command ratings and battle force selection rules, because to do so produces the inconsistent results above. I think the issue should be addressed in terms of a direct rule that allows withdrawal before combat of a certain number of units (maybe a whole fleet) behind a fixed defense comprising a base or PDU or PGB.

Grist for F&E 2010?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 - 06:23 pm: Edit

Alternatively, a "simpler" solution would be to give a PGB or PDU a command rating of 1. Problem solved without changing any other rules.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 - 06:23 pm: Edit

Then we are in the realm of a rules change. Which might be a good thing. But respectfully is not withing the purview of FEAR.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 - 06:33 pm: Edit

To show by example how the current result makes no sense:

I could have 20 PDUs (180 compot and 120 fighter factors) at a capital and I'd still not be able to cover a single ship on withdrawal.

I have a single immobile PGB, and with it I will instantly stop a B10AA-lead fleet from pursuing a fleet entirely composed of cripples.

Again, I think the simplest solution is to give the PGB or PDU a command rating of 1.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 01:44 am: Edit

The CR1 means the unit can lead a group that includes itself and one other unit.

The CR0 means the unit can lead a group that includes just itself and NO other units.

N/A "CR" should apply to units that cannot fight by themselves at all such as Prime Teams, DIPs, modules, pods, etc.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 07:37 am: Edit

..........

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 - 05:30 pm: Edit


I have done a bunch of looking trying to resolve whether a PDU can be selected as a "flag" for purposes of allowing two or fewer other units to withdraw before combat.
.........

Not a FEAR ruling or anything and rules not with me but I believe the 2 ships might be able to escape combat, by accepting the Approach battle request - and sending the PDU fighters forward as an Independent Squadron - which have a CR of 3 (athough that might be just fighters on their own!?!?) - which should allow the ships to not be included - and then they can retreat.

Hope this helps....
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 08:30 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
The CR1 means the unit can lead a group that includes itself and one other unit.

The CR0 means the unit can lead a group that includes just itself and NO other units.

N/A "CR" should apply to units that cannot fight by themselves at all such as Prime Teams, DIPs, modules, pods, etc.
________________________________________

Chuck,

That seems right, except unless I missed something (which is sure possible) there are no N/A CR things on the SITS, those things we all would agree should not be allowed to be in command are just given a default CR=0.

Perhaps the intent is that PDU/PGB's be allowed to be the Flagship in a force, but with CR=0. I certainly cannot tell by the SITS though as so many other obvious things have CR=0 and we know they cannot be the flagship.

I will point out also this ONLY comes up in two situations, when there is a battle that has PDU/PGB(or FDU to be complete) and one or two ships present. Once there are three ships present it becomes moot as all the ships will have CR>0 and then PDU=Flag never comes up.

In the case of 1 or 2 ships, then if you do not allow the PDU to be the flagship, then 1 of the ships will have to come to the line as a flagship. If you allow the PDU to be flag then none of the ships need appear on the line.

In this case I do not see it as unrealistic at all that one of the ships has to appear on the line.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 08:33 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Not a FEAR ruling or anything and rules not with me but I believe the 2 ships might be able to escape combat, by accepting the Approach battle request - and sending the PDU fighters forward as an Independent Squadron - which have a CR of 3 (athough that might be just fighters on their own!?!?) - which should allow the ships to not be included - and then they can retreat.

Hope this helps....
________________________________________

Don't think that will work Raven. When you accept the approach battle you still must pick a Flagship. Fighters do NOT have a CR unless they are the only units present in which case they get an assumed rating of 3. I do not have my rules with me, but its a specific exception giving IFF a CR when there is no other unit able to command present. So in the approach battle one of the ships would have to be named the Flagship and appear in the approach battle.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Request official FEAR clarification under 302.77 (fighting retreat) regarding two issues. Suggest ruling be incorporated somehow into F&E 2010.

1) Is the *entire* retreating force required to be on the battle line, or do normal command and control rules apply? In other words, could I put up the normal minimum battle force or do all retreating units have to appear on the line? If all units appear on the line, then what if I have 100 retreating ships?

2) (302.771) requires that the retreating force fight a round and then retreat again. Do normal retreat rules apply? For example, is the normal procedure determining who retreats when apply? (I.e., non-phasing player gets first option, then phasing player gets only option, then non-phasing gets second option)? If not, why not. If not, what procedure *is* applied?

Thank you.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 08:55 am: Edit

In addition to the above concerns.

Q1 For Fighting retreats is the retreating force allowed to conduct withdrawal before combat while fighting retreating?

I have thought that FR is a continuation of the orginal battle and therefore one did not get another opportunity to withdraw before combat.

While we are at it slightly different question but its mixed up in this issue.

Q2 Does the defender always pick his retreat hex before the attacker in a case when both sides retreat from a battlehex?

There are three retreat opportunities, Defender has two that sandwich the attackers. Simply put
a. Defender retreat opp
b. Attacker retreat opp
c. Defender retreat opp

I asked this question before but could not find the answer. But the answer given was that regardless of the defender using a or c that the defender ALWAYS picked his hex first. At the time I thought that seemed fairly silly, as it relegated this three step procedure to really being nothing more than smoke and mirrors. A defender should ALWAYS choose c. as it changes nothing. But that was the answer given. That once its determined who retreats the defender picks his hex (which may invalidate one or two choices the attacker might have had) then the attacker chooses his hex.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 11:08 am: Edit

FEAR, here's another FR analysis for which I request confirmation (302.7 et. seq.).

Looking at it, I think this is how it works:

1) At the end of any given battle round the players make a *decision* to retreat in the decision order specified (defender 1st option, attacker only option, defender 2nd option).
2) Players then conduct the retreat, with the defender going first. Conducting is separate from deciding.
3) Defender evaluates the retreat priorities and figures out his options.
4) If defender decides on FR, then fully resolve the resulting FR chain until it is done. At the point of retreat during each FR, the priorirty list is re-evaluated. (Jury out on whether withdrawal b/f combat allowed during FR.) Fully resolve the FR chain before going to step 5 below.
5) Attacker evaluates retreat priorities and figures out his options.
6) If attacker decides on FR, then fully resolve the resulting FR chain until it is done. At the point of retreat during each FR, the priorirty list is re-evaluated. (Jury out on whether withdrawal b/f combat allowed.)
7) Proceed to the next battle hex.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 01:01 pm: Edit

T&M: There is a CLog article all about FR...not sure which one as I am currently 100 miles from my stuff. I will not be home until tonight but will check for you if you havent found it by then. It is very helpful in clearing your mind about how it works (it helped me when it came out). Not sure if you both have looked but you might want to check those first before further inundating the FEAR.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Lawrence, I just did a text search of the Captain's Log compendium. No article on FR there and no indication of the answers to our questions. At least that I found. You know of something more specific?
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 11:15 pm: Edit

Ted I got back and searched through them. I saw sevaral questions about FR along the way from CLog 21 to 36. I think though that what I was remembering appeared on page 100 of CL#26. It is where rule 302.775 appears for the first time.
I don't think this is what you were getting at however. As I said I was away from my materials and I only remember it dealt with FR and that it helped me at the time.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 10:44 am: Edit

FEAR,

I've been doing some more thinking on the withdrawal before combat issue during FR. Looking at the sequence of play, selecting flags happens right at the beginng of the combat sequence - just after withdrawal before combat. You *have* to select a flag during the FR round. Because you are already nearly starting over again in the combat SoP when conducting the required FR round, and because there's no rule saying "no withdrawal b/f combat during FR," I would reason that it makes sense that you would go *all* the way to the beginning of the combat SoP. As a result, my best guess is that withdrawal b/f combat *is* allowed during the required FR round.

Thanks.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Ted,

I think your outline of retreat is mostly correct except for the following:

4 and 6:

If you do it as you say, then you can never have a situation where the attacker and defender fighting retreat into the same hex. Also you can have a really funky interaction where you have that once force in two hexes at the same time. Let me explain. If you do the fighting retreat before the end of the retreat phase you can get the following:

1) Defender FRs
2) Defender fights FRs round in new hex and continues retreat
3) Attacker in the old battle hex pursues the Defender, even though he is now two hexes away.

Once one or both sides have retreated, the battle hex is "resolved". The fighting retreat takes place in a different hex, hense a different battle hex. So by your outline, it would be better to say:

4) Defender decides to perform a fighting retreat or not.
6) Attacker decides to perform a fighting retreat or not.

There is no requirement, to the best of my knowledge, that forces the players to resolve the fighting retreats immediately, nor due to the weird pursuit thing that can happen, should there be.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 01:37 pm: Edit

Robert,

I think that the ruling regarding two fighting retreats in the same hex is based on an incorrect reading of the retreat rules, or at a minimum there is an inconsistency in the rulings.

Looking at the SoP I can see where you are coming from about a pursuit from two hexes away. However, on closer analysis I don't think that could happen.

While the SoP is slightly schizophrenic, I think the answer lies there. Step 5-7C and 5-7D says "analyze retreat" and "conduct ship retreat", but Step 5-7B (before hand) says go to step 8 for pursuit. Later, step 5-8J says "once all pursuit is resolved for the battle hex, then ship retreat is conducted immediately."

Thus, the SoP appears to require that pursuit is resolved in the battle hex AND THEN ship retreat is conducted. In our case, the FR would be resolved after pursuit. Thus, you will never have a situation where you are having a pursuit round from forces two hexes away.

Also, I don't think your revisions of steps 4 and 6 are quite accurate. Rule 302.72 clearly states that the "defender retreats first." However, 302.71 clearly states that defender decides to retreat, attacker decides to retreat, and then defender gets second option.

The only way to reconcile these two rules is to say that the *decision* to retreat comes first (made in the order given). After both players have decided in the order given, then the defender retreats first.

If the defender retreats first, then that retreat must be resolved. The only way to resolve it is to end the FR chain because the defender is required to retreat again, but that appears to be all part of the original FR, which must be resolved.

Of course, it could be argued that a new BH is formed upon the FR and that the FR hex could be resolved out of order. Maybe there is a ruling to that effect.

In any case, I think step 4 must be "defender decides to perform a FR and then conducts it (whether or not a new BH is formed that can be resolved in a different order is in question). Step 5 must be "after defender conducts retreat or FR, attacker decides where to retreat (and might FR) and then conducts it.

Anyway, a little clarification seems to be in order.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Perhaps it would blow something else up.. I don't think so. But Fighting retreat would be ALOT better and easier if it was done thusly.

Fighting Retreat is just a regular retreat, where the person Fighting Retreating has to retreat again after one round, and this round is fought at 0 - 10 BIR.

This along with the clarifications for FRing onto bases and such would be plenty and be very simple.

FR would create a New BH that the Phasing player then resolves at his leisure, no special sequence no out of normal order stuff.. its just like normal retreat except above. It would sure simplify everything.

Right now FR is way too often being used to gain an advantage somehow by using these funky interactions and special sequences it has. This would relegate it to mostly being a disadvantage you suffer only when not FRing would make it even worse.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 03:42 pm: Edit

FEDS ruling on the current existing Fighting Retreats (FR) rule (302.77)

Conducting RETREAT and fighting a FR battle are two separate things.

We will add the following steps to the SoP:

ADD (5-7E & 5-8M):
"RETREATING PLAYERS MOVE THEIR UNITS FROM THE EXISTING BATTLE HEX TO THEIR SELECTED RETREAT HEXES. If both retreat then the defending player conducts his retreat first (302.712)."

MODIFY 5-7A4: Remove text: " If both retreat then the defending player conducts his retreat first (302.712)." (This was moved to 5-7E & 5-8M above)

1. A FR creates a new battle hex or converts an existing battle hex into a FR battle hex.

2. There is no requirement that a FR battle hex be fought immediately after the previous (retreat) battle hex; however the hex selected during by the FR procedures remains a FR battle hex whenever it it is chosen for resolution by the phasing player.

3. A FR battle must still follow ALL the steps in PHASE-5 COMBAT of the SoP under the terms within (302.77) FIGHTING RETREAT. This includes withdrawal before combat and flagship selection procedures.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 04:15 pm: Edit

Bless you, FEDS!
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 04:16 pm: Edit

FEDS, what is best way to make sure these changes make it into F&E 2010, or will SVC make these changes automatically as he goes?
By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Is there a FR marker in the counter mix now?

I don't remember one in the single sided mix.

Charles Chapel
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 04:54 pm: Edit

CC: No.
By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 03:18 am: Edit

I think I'm going to like this. Thanks for the clarification Chuck. ;)
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 05:57 pm: Edit

(425.3)Rapid Combat Repair can be used between combat rounds to repair damaged ships. Can Rapid Combat Repair be used after a declined approach battle (302.22) to repair damaged ships that were damaged in the previous player phase?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 11:37 am: Edit

(425.3) Rapid Combat Repair (RCR)

The rule specifically states that RCR can be done during the "COMBAT PHASE (SoP Phase 5 during 5-6X8) to repair ships in the same hex" as the repair unit. There is no requirement that damage must be scored in the current player turn/location or no requirement that actual combat must be performed; only that these RCR is done in that PHASE.

A "null" combat hex would also be eligible for RCR to enable such things as repair of units damaged during a raid or units that retreat on to a repair facility so long as the damage unit and the repair facility are co-located at the time of RCR; all RCR restrictions still apply.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 02:27 pm: Edit

Before I go jumping to conclusions. Are you saying that one can RCR in any hex with repair capacity and crippled units, and that this can occur anytime during the combat phase.

I have been assuming its between battle rounds at the location itself. So to confirm.

I have a SB with a Crippled 8/4 CA.

1. There is a combat at this SB. I can repair the CA between any combat round?

2. There is a combat at this SB. I can repair it after a declined approach battle?

3. Same as 2 even if the attacker retreats?

4. Even if there is no battle hex at the SB's location?

5. Even if there are no battlehexes this combat phase at all? (although why I don't then wait for my turn is beyond me)
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Michael, the letter of the rule (425.3) says you can use RCR during the combat phase. The SoP gives you the specific time you get to do it, step 5-6X8, which is right before the retreat part of the phase. The rule makes no mention that the ship must have been crippled in that combat phase.

So to answer your questions:

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes, but why would you since you know you can just repair it for half the cost on your turn?
4) No, you'd have to be resolving a battle hex, otherwise how could you get to step 5-6X8 in the SoP?
5) No (same as 4)
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 05:05 pm: Edit

Robert,

That is sort of what I thought. Except the 'A "null" combat hex' statement. I suppose he meant one in which there was a battle with no shots fired like a declined approach battle.

And on 3) because its possible another retreat could be headed my way later in the turn.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 05:12 pm: Edit

This would be something for the FEAR to rule on (and perhaps myself to review) before you leap to any further conclusions.
By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - 12:21 am: Edit

A couple o' questions (anybody...)

First, regarding the diplomacy trade mission (540.23). Can, for example, the Gorns send diplomats to Hydra using the Fed and Klingon SMNs to get trade EPs at least until Klinshai is at war w/ Hydra? It seems they can. I dunno, my group has always thrown these options out.

Second, regarding Balance Option (653.11M, Lyran:"Early CV's"), do you think that is just for CV production or can the Lyrans immediately start producing the escorts that normally became available when the CV & CVLs did ( i.e.- S171; FFE, DWE, CWE etc.)?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, February 05, 2010 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Request for FEAR ruling on COEs used as SAFs.

My question has to do with how COEs are damaged when the COE is used as a SAF.

541.34D states that an engineer regiment can function as a SAF, but if it "survives the attack" it is not destroyed but remains on the map. (Emphasis supplied). It can do this only once per game turn. (Emphasis supplied). Note COEs used as SAFs cannot be escorted (541.21), so they'd be vulnerable on nearly any fixed position assault.

OK, so let's go to the SAF rules.

520.41 specifically states that you can only cripple a SAF, which disrupts it for purposes of the subsequent special attack. Naturally, the SAF is disbanded after the attack, regardless of coutcome, but that part doesn't apply to the COEs per 541.34D.

However, a SAF is not a COE. Thus, it is unclear to me whether you can direct kill a COE acting as a SAF, or whether the SAF rule (520.41) prevents you from direct killing the COE uses as a SAF.

Argument for being able to direct kill: The COE won't "survive the attack" (per 541.34D) if you kill it, and the "attack" should be interpreted to be the actual attack roll on the position, so it stands to reason that you can direct kill a COE used as a SAF despite 520.41.

Argument against: If the COE is "acting as an SAF" then the SAF rules should apply - meaning that the COE can only be direct crippled per 520.41. The "attack" in 541.34D could be the attack on the hex, and you can only do this once per phasing turn, so survival could be contingent on holding the hex (as opposed to the enemy killing the crippled COE upon slow retreat).

Ruling is requested. Thanks.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 04:51 pm: Edit

Thomas Mathews:
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.

R: The D5G, looking at the SSD has differences from the D5H in that it has areas for troops and the support services for those troops. The power curve is the same. It can carry items of bulk but cannot operate things such as a BP (mission A) or a VP (mission B). With that said the following missions are allowed: T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB

Justification for not allowing missions P & R are that it involves operation of pods which the D5G has not been able to do so far. It could carry them in an inactive state. Missions T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB involve moving stuff that is not attached to the D5G or stored inside it and those are the types of missions it has done in the past.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Can a D5G upgrade existing PGBs/PDUs under (433.42), (441.13), and (441.3) by moving to the planet in question and then paying the appropriate costs?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Thomas Mathews: Can a D5G upgrade existing PGBs/PDUs under (433.42), (441.13), and (441.3) by moving to the planet in question and then paying the appropriate costs?

A:Yes.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 10:17 pm: Edit

(509.1)J. Does the Hydran MTG upgrade a MB to a BATS as the regular production Tug or does it take two of them to perform the base upgrade as the LTTs do?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Since the MTG is based on the NCA, it should be able to do anything that a CA based tug can...
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 05:30 am: Edit

What are tug missions X, Y, Z, AA and AB? I have not been able to find them in the rulebook.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 07:45 am: Edit

Rob, X, Y, Z, AA, and AB are going to be in the 2010 Rule book. See Core Change 18. AA, and AB are going to be J3 and J4 in the 2010 Rule book. X, and Y deal with Colonies and Colony Bases. Z is the Minor Ship Yard rule. AA and AB with installing SFG's and Base Modules.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, February 15, 2010 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Question for FEAR regarding number of Colonies that can be built in the off map area, in conjunction with colonies obtained via high risk survey.

(446.15) provides that a race could develop one colony in the offmap area for every five new provinces surveyed there (not including pre-game "at start" provinces).

(542.27) provides that, upon rolling a 2, you create an off-map colony without going through the colony set up rules. If more than one colony already exists per off-map province, no effect. This colony is created in zero time and at zero cost.

My question is this: Do colonies obtained using HRS (high risk survey) count against the limits imposed by 446.15?

In other words, say I have surveyed 5 offmap provinces in addition to the starting offmap provinces. On a previous turn I rolled a "2" using HRS and got my first "free" colony. Per 446.15 I am now able to start normal colony development for one colony. However, if the "free" colony I obtained by HRS counts against the limit in 446.15, then I will have to wait until I have surveyed my 10th additional offmap province before developing another offmap colony.

No interest in the outcome - just want an answer.

Thanks for consideration.
By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 02:10 am: Edit

I did a search for my question and couldn't find an answer, so I'm posting it here...

What is the SFB equivalent of a PDU? DefSats? GBDS? A mine package? A combination of those? Or something else entirely?

Thank you.
By Mike Dowd (Duellist_69) on Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Has there been any word on estimated price yet for 2010?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 01:50 pm: Edit

STAR FLEET ALERT
17 FEBRUARY 2010
IMMINENT RELEASE WARNING
========================
Federation & Empire: 2010
The New Edition The New Edition
A new edition of F&E, updated with new larger sheets of counters. Totally revised and updated rules designed to improve playability (no more of those awkward carrier groups; every ship has its own counter). The new countersheet of bases is included.
SKU #5006, $69.95
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Question for FEAR:

Can Klingons perform WYN trade via blockade running on turn 1 of the general war?

They definitely accumulate trade rights. 449.11. However, 601.161 forbids Klingons from leaving their territory on turn 1 of the GW scenario.

I find no enabling rule that provides an exception to 601.161; so my guess is that the answer to my question is "no."

However, it makes little sense to me to negotiate trade rights and then be unable to actually trade. So, maybe there's an oversight somewhere and it's meant to be allowed for the Klingons to blockade run EPs to the WYN on turn 1? Hence, it's possible that the answer might be "yes."

Official answer requested.
By Mike Dowd (Duellist_69) on Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Thanks Ryan -- sometimes it's difficult to find things in the 'wall of text'
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Head's up to FEAR: The game designer is relatively certain that none of those issues came to mind when he was doing the rules, so do what's good for the game.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Multi-part Question for FEAR: Rule (709.3) allows one Hydran DWF per turn as a substitution for an FF prior to 176F, and allows no additional conversions with a maximum of four prototype DW hulls during the 7 turns from 173S to 176S (inclusive). Rule (450.1) allows the Hydrans to begin production of two DW ship yards when DW class ships become available. Rule (450.16) restricts minor ship yards to ships that are all ready on the production schedule. Can the Hydran begin building a DW minor ship yard starting in 173S when DWs first becomes available as a substitution on their schedule? This would allow DW production at these minor ship yards as early as 174F as the ship is effectively on the schedule as a substitution. Or are they required to wait to 176F to build a DW minor ship yard when the DW becomes a standard part of their production schedule? Would this change if the Hydrans still hold their ship yard in 173S, which allows the Hydrans to begin their Y176 production schedule early? In addition, would the four prototype DW hull limit include production of DWs from minor ship yards?

Argument against: Prior to 176F the DW is not a part of the regular production schedule but only an allowed substitution of a ship on the scheduled production list. Allowing it will allow a minor upgrade of Hydran capabilities if they lose their capital during the time period that they do not have a full shipyard.

Argument for: There is a significant trade off to the Hydrans for building one DW minor ship yard as there are several other missions for their one Engineer Brigade. To build a second DW ship yard prior to 176F will cost the Hydran 15 or 20 EPs depending on how they build it. This is a trade off that the Hydran will have to decide if they can afford as they attempt to build a medium or full ship yard. In addition; the Romulans may build minor ship yards for ships that are not part of their regular production schedule, but are allowed substitutions for ships on their schedule. Romulans may build ships yards for the BH, K4, K5 +K5L, and KDR. The BH is an allowed substitution for a SK hull. The K4, K5, K5L, and KDR are never a part of the regular Romulan productions schedule. No other empires have comparable situations regarding minor ship yards.

If allowed this will let the Hydran produce up to a maximum of 8 additional DW hulls prior to 176F but at significant cost. The Hydrans will have to assign a rare tug or build a second Engineer Brigade in order to build more than one DW yard in time to have any effect on their production which the Hydran may not be able to afford if their capital falls, and which they will not need to spend if their capital does not fall as they will have full DW production starting in 173S.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 05:55 am: Edit

Dan, The Romulans pay a surcharge of 2 EPs per turn of construction of the shipyard type in question. So the FF shipyard for K4Rs would cost an extra 4 EPs, while the KDR shipyard would cost an extra 8 EPs.

My guess is that the surcharge covers somethings not seen in the game regarding the maintenance and construction practices used on the K-hulls that have to be licensed and/or learned from the Klingons.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 10:11 pm: Edit

I don't see that as altering the question or example Tom, as the Hydrans would be using their own tech base. Especially since 8EP is worth the cost to have KDR production.
By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Friday, February 26, 2010 - 01:55 am: Edit

I was gonna post this in the "rules that kill" topic but figured I better get it straight myself, first. :p

1. (507.2) "...Command points, admirals, and drone ships cannot be used establishing the size of a Reserve.." - Doesn't that just mean that drone ships cannot extend the size of the Reserve battleforce by being in the support line (up to 3 platforms) and thus avoid CR limit of the Reserve Command Ship? But any number of drone ships *could* be part of the reserve battleforce if counted against the command ship's CR... right?

2. (307.4) Same goes for pursuit too, correct? Just six ships which could include, for example, 5xD7 & D6D. Not (of course) 6xD7 & 3xD6D bombarding for +12 AF.

...or does one or both of those really just mean *NO DRONE SHIPS*, ever.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, February 26, 2010 - 05:52 am: Edit

1. Drone ships can be used in Reserve fleets. They count against the CR of the flagship of the Reserve fleet. If a Drone ship has scout sensors (the scout symnbol), it could be added to the Reserve Fleet as the free scout allowed.

2. A drone ship or drone ships can be part of the pursuing force of six ships. But count against the limit of 6 ships.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, February 26, 2010 - 03:38 pm: Edit

Over in the SFB Stellar Fortress thread, it was noted that according to (420.42), the standard fortress has, or will have, the same repair capacity as the advanced technology starbase (24 apiece).

Should an X-fortress be added to the game (and thus added to the above list) what would its repair capacity be?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 26, 2010 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Let me take care of the stellar fortress. When I'm ready for you to know what it is and what it does, I'll tell you.
By Mike Dowd (Duellist_69) on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 11:29 am: Edit

If, when a player is assaulting the Tholian homeworld, and the Tholians score more damage in a single round then is required to kill all the ships in the battle force, what happens to the excess damage?

Is it carried over as plus points to the next round?

Does it disappear, since there is nothing left in the battleforce to carry it over?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 02:57 pm: Edit

MD:

See Annihilation under (302.632).
By Mike Dowd (Duellist_69) on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 03:47 pm: Edit

Thanks Chuck.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 02:42 pm: Edit

March - April 2010 Archive

By Mitchell Land (Toadkillerdog) on Friday, March 05, 2010 - 08:15 pm: Edit

432.44 is clear to me. However, under the Kzinti 705.2, it says "No more than one drone ship can be produced by subsitution each year (432.44)." Which is also clear to me. Does this mean that they can produce any number through conversion?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, March 05, 2010 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Yes, they can produce the other 3 drone ships by conversion. 1 on the same turn that the other is built as a substitution. The remaining 2 on the other turn during the same year must also be by conversion.

You could produce the 4th drone ship by conversion if your so inclined. The same applies to the Klingons
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, March 05, 2010 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Mitchell,

Since I maintain the Online OOB I'll take this. F&E 2010 only limits the number of substitions to 1 per year. You'll see your main limit being the number of FF's available.

With Advanced Operations the number for the Kzinti changes to 1 per year by substitions and no more then 2 per turn by any means and no more then 1 per year by substition.

Ryan "OB" Opel
By Mitchell Land (Toadkillerdog) on Friday, March 05, 2010 - 10:17 pm: Edit

506.5

In reading the Gorn Confederation Setup (706.0), the Off Map section says to see 506.5 for activation. There is no 506.5 in the new 2010 rules. Where can I find this rule?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, March 06, 2010 - 03:33 am: Edit

Three questions have come up in my new game with Ted.

Espionage & Sabotage mission (534.223 specifically, cripple a Ship)

Can a Prime Team do an E&S mission to cripple a Police ship? As there is no crippled side, the ship is killed instead of being crippled.

Also, can a Prime Team raid a crippled ship (which is outside of 3 hexes, so can't be captured) to destroy it?

I can see answers either way - the fact a Police Ship is so 'weak' shouldn't stop it being raided - but equally, a Prime Team isn't going to 'blow something up', while they are on it (there own life expectancy is shortened!)

Police Carriers (531.4)
Can the fighters react off (with a ship or 3 other fighters to adhere to the fighter reactio rules) the Carriers and be used in a seperate hex (as Independent Squadrons). I can't see any rules stopping this - but it could allow the fighters to be transfered to another non-police carrier (kill the Carrier fighters - transfer the Ind Sq to it..unless you keep track of where the fighters came from!)

Normal Raids (314.244)
If the initial combat is succesful for the raider (or no damage done by either), via Alternative Attack, can the raider attack the ship that reacted into the hex - or can it only attack ships which started the raid phase in the hex?

Thanks
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 03:11 am: Edit

Formal question to FEAR.

I don't have F&E2010 (and Ted hasn't seen it covered one way or the other off hand).

How does Raids, Advanced Small-Scale Combat (in Adv Ops) and Extended Small Scale Combat (in Capt Log/Errata) interact - as we appear to have found a gap in the switch from ASSC to ESSC?

Hex is raided by a DNL+PT, which has 2 x Police Ship in it. A Kzinti Tug+BP+VP reacts in (was a single ship carrier so is allowed). The defending force all has to fight the raider (or no reaction and 'don't find it') - 314.244 says 'any defending units' - the defender doesn't appear to be able to include some, but not all (unless there is a base 314.251).

314.244 confirms single combat/ASSC must be used.

Rule 323.33 - ESSC (in Cap Log 37) confirms ESSC replaces SC 310 and ASSC 318.

ESSC does not refer to what happens if the forces are too big and and is raid combat (other than if the single raider is too big for ESSC).

Ted and I have played it that normal combat is done - but only for a single round (as 318.731 doesn't apply) - but the current result is that the Lyrans 'owe' 5 points (less than 50% of Def Compot) and might now be able to alternatively attack any single unit in the hex - and those 5 owed point might disappear.

Three solutions I think -

1 - ESSC says 'can use the ESSC' - so as we started using normal combat, we end the raid using normal combat (which to me sounds most logical and fair to both sides?)

2 - Allow the Raider now to attack under ESSC any individual unit in the hex (thereby avoiding the owed points, but does make raids powerful, if thats what we want).

3 - Retain 318.731 - so normal combat continues until one side dies or withdraws - disadvantage is that the raider can never do an alternative attack on a single unit then.

(Also posted in a Q&A for a formal answer but I think Ted and I are happy for a consensus!)

Thanks

Thanks
By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 03:45 am: Edit

318.73 Seems to say you must use the normal combat rules (as the defending force does not qualify for small scale combat 318.72).
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 07:32 am: Edit

318.7 was replaced by ESSC (323.0) which is now SSC (310.0).

There is an exception in SSC (310.115) for exactly 3 ships that exceed the 14-19 limit to use SSC at the option of the owning player.

This is a subtle change from the original ESSC.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 11:33 am: Edit

318.73 is the general rule about conducting ESSC combat.

The specific rule, 314.244, says you fight ONE round of combat - and then either move on to the duel or the province disruption. Thus, I think it is reasonable to say that the first combat (reaction combat) is over - and there is a second combat, which may or may not qualify for ESSC. If that results in the loss of plus or minus points, so be it.

I think the point of disagreement here is not whether ESSC is used for a whole combat, but whether there are multiple combats happening. Obviously, I say there are multiple combats. If so, then the plus points are ignored because the first battle is "resolved" and the second battle is something entirely new.

Personally, I think FEAR could rule either way.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 12:21 pm: Edit

I think I just answered the above question. 310.11 in F&E 2010 says you use one combat mode or the other if the battle hex begins using one mode or the other. That would mean that the subsequent duel would also have to use normal combat.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 01:35 pm: Edit

Thanks Ted, I knew I saw that somewhere.

Once you start one way, you can't change in the middle of it.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 02:17 pm: Edit

Guys -- remember that the old single ship combat (and ASSC) rules always resulted in one side being destroyed or forced to retreat -- as such there could only be ONE round.
________________________________________
Quote:
That would mean that the subsequent duel would also have to use normal combat.
________________________________________
Not true since the opponent doesn't know the raider's intentions under (314.252) as it is entirely possible that a raid begins with the new (310.0) but the alternate attack may have to revert to the normal combat rules due to the size of the alternate target (such as a BATS with attrition units) unless waived under (310.115).

(314.28) will need to be adjusted when we update AO to reflect the following:

(314.281) If raid combat begins using the normal combat rules then continue to use the the normal combat rules throughout the entire raid. (This way plus/minus points are not lost.)

(314.282) If raid combat begins using the new (310.0) and the follow-on alternate attack is later deemed eligible for (310.0) then continue using (310.0).

(314.283) If raid combat begins using the new (310.0) and the follow-on alternate attack is later deemed ineligible for (310.0) then switch the normal combat rules (ignoring approach or pursuit rounds). This may be waived by the owner under (310.115).
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Thanks for fast resolution, Chuck.
By Mitchell Land (Toadkillerdog) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 03:37 pm: Edit

In reading the Gorn Confederation Setup (706.0), the Off Map section says to see 506.5 for activation. There is no 506.5 in the new 2010 rules. Where can I find this rule?

How do I get my Gorn ships out of hock?
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 04:46 pm: Edit

Woopsie..

506.5 used to say...

(506.5) The Gorns have six ships off-map.
These are:
# Ship
1 CL
2 CL
3 DD
4 DD
5 SC
6 TG


Each turn when at full war, roll one die in the Production Phase. If the result matches the number of a ship above which has not been previously released, that ship is released and allowed to enter the map by Operational Movement. The Gorn player must pay 2EPs for this ship as it has not previously been refitted, but no conversion slot is used. Obviously, no more than six ships will be received and some of the six may never be activated.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 07:46 pm: Edit

To the F&E Community, ADB, and Steve Cole:

Please accept my humble apology for the omission of the Gorn off-map ship rule (506.5) in the recent update of F&E 2010. As the executive developer for F&E 2010, I should have caught the error and I failed to do so. In addition, I also extend this apology to ADB and Steve Cole as they already have enough on their plate with of other segments of the Star Fleet Universe that they count on me to be the final overseer of such issues and I let them down. SVC time spent on F&E is invaluable and I regret the grief this has caused him, ADB, and this community. I accept full responsibility for the omission and pledge to the F&E community and ADB do better in the future.

Humbly,
Chuck Strong

The updated but omitted rule should read:

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

(506.5) GORN OFF-MAP SHIPS
The Gorns have six ships off-map. These are:
1 2 3 4 5 6
CL CL DD DD SC TG



(506.51) Release: Each turn when at full war, roll one die in the Production Phase. If the result matches the number of a ship above which has not been previously released, that ship is released and allowed to enter the map by Operational Movement. Obviously, no more than six ships will be received and some of the six may never be activated.

(506.52) Refit Cost: The Gorn player must pay 2EPs for this ship as it has not previously been refitted, but no conversion slot is used.

==================================
The above wording is subject to final ADB approval.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 07:56 pm: Edit

So, how do we go about getting this "missing" page for those of us that bought the new rulebook?
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 08:10 pm: Edit

I won't be bothered in the slightest if it is just PDF'ed.
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 08:43 pm: Edit

Guys, give SVC time to deal with this, please. I know he wants time to see how many after-action reports there are and any typos and things like that.

Please send any reports to SVC by email.

Thanks for your help and cooperation,

Jean
WebMom
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 09:36 pm: Edit

I agree with Loren; a PDF would work just fine for me since the rule is short and causes no problems with the pagination. This is a big benefit to having the extra whitespace in the new rulebook as minor corrections can be posted as a PDF, or printed and inserted with the current printed stock, or entirely corrected with on-demand printing.

Heck, if ADB permits me, I will just print the missing rule on an AVERY-5168 3.5" x 5" mailing label and stick over the Lyran DN on page 89 -- easy! (AVERY 5164, 5264 and 8464 works as well.)

That said, I am greatly impressed with this product. I fully understand that with such an intricate game as F&E is and time constraints involved, I’m not concerned at all with a relatively minor number of typos, errant cross indexes or an omitted line item. Most can be easily corrected via ‘pen & ink’ or PDFs from ADB since most F&E players have access to a computer, printer and 3-hole punch. No worries at this end.

Final grade for this product: "A"; well done!
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 - 09:19 am: Edit

Everyone, shoooo, get out of my kitchen with this "I would like a PDF thing", please. Take it to the General F&E topic where it belongs. Thank you!
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Mike,

Not to be a pest but I may be starting production of Minor Ship yards in my next turn as the Hydran. Any chance you will get to answer questions before the 20th?
By Peter Bonfanti (Otherbonfanti) on Saturday, March 13, 2010 - 04:23 pm: Edit

For FEAR or anyone:

Rule 600.31 provides that up to six ships of an unreleased fleet may move operationally within that fleet's zone each turn. Are ships of unreleased fleets allowed to move strategically within their deployment zone? If so, is that counted within the limit of six?
As there's no enabling rule that I can find, my guess is that unreleased ships just can't move strategically, but I thought I'd check.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, March 15, 2010 - 09:47 am: Edit

(601.12) requires that the Kzintis keep a CC and 5 other ships in the 2 provinces to "guard against the Federation." Could the Kzinti's replace the CC with a DN for the purposes of (601.12)? Obviously the DN couldn't leave those Marquis provinces until such time as the original CC would be normally released.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, March 15, 2010 - 10:21 am: Edit

Please note the new nomenclature on questions and answers from FEAR. This will allow better keyword searches by rule number. All questions and answers will start with the a 'Q' for question, 'A' for answer, and 'R' for ruling followed by xxx.xxx which will be a primary rule number associated with the question. This will start from this point and hopefully help do searches in the future.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, March 15, 2010 - 10:22 am: Edit

Daniel Knipfer:

Q450.16: Rule (709.3) allows one Hydran DWF per turn as a substitution for an FF prior to 176F, and allows no additional conversions with a maximum of four prototype DW hulls during the 7 turns from 173S to 176S (inclusive). Rule (450.1) allows the Hydrans to begin production of two DW ship yards when DW class ships become available. Rule (450.16) restricts minor ship yards to ships that are all ready on the production schedule. Can the Hydran begin building a DW minor ship yard starting in 173S when DWs first becomes available as a substitution on their schedule? This would allow DW production at these minor ship yards as early as 174F as the ship is effectively on the schedule as a substitution. Or are they required to wait to 176F to build a DW minor ship yard when the DW becomes a standard part of their production schedule? Would this change if the Hydrans still hold their ship yard in 173S, which allows the Hydrans to begin their Y176 production schedule early? In addition, would the four prototype DW hull limit include production of DWs from minor ship yards?

A450.16: (450.16) specifically states that a minor shipyard cannot begin building until the class is on the production schedule (bold for emphasis). Until the DW is on the production schedule by either print or by rule a minor shipyard for that class cannot be built. This means you cannot use the allowed substitution to count as being on the schedule.

If the Hydrans still hold their ship yard in S173 and get their S176 production schedule moved up, then they can start the DW minor shipyard on S173, but not before.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, March 15, 2010 - 10:25 am: Edit

Q601.12: (601.12) requires that the Kzintis keep a CC and 5 other ships in the 2 provinces to "guard against the Federation." Could the Kzinti's replace the CC with a DN for the purposes of (601.12)? Obviously the DN couldn't leave those Marquis provinces until such time as the original CC would be normally released.

A601.12: The CC is the personal ship of the Marquis and as such needs to stay as he is staying in his territory. He would not leave unless the Klingons invade.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 15, 2010 - 06:50 pm: Edit

Mike,

On your answer to Q601.12, would the Marquis actually turn down an upgrade to a DN as his flag ship? Your ruling does follow the letter of the rule, but I'm not sure it follows the spirit of the rule.

Of course, once a DN was exchanged into the Marquis fleet to release the CC, only a warship (no battle-tugs) of equal or superior combat and command rating to the new DN flagship could ever replace it.


P.S. Thanks for answering my question. It's what I expected, but I had to ask.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 09:54 am: Edit

The only two DN's are for the Kzinti ruler, at the time, and the Duke. It would upset the political balance between the Count and the Marquis for the Marquis to have a DN and the Count not have one, even in war.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 10:43 am: Edit

Turn 4, build a DN, give to the Count.

Turn 6, build a DN, who gets that one, Baron or Marquis (I don't know which one has the higher title). If Marquis is next, can we swap out DN for CC then? What if there had been an additional DN at start, as a balance option? What conditions would be needed to allow for a DN/CC swap? How about a Battletug instead?

I ask this because the larger question would be, once I've selected the five other ships, can I swap them out for different ships later? I left an FFG with the Marquis, but then my nastybad opponent fried every troopship I have. Could I add a FF to the Marquis fleet and draw the FFG into the warfront?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 11:35 am: Edit

If there is a formal request to bump my answer up to Chuck let me know.

EDIT: As for the other five ships, the rule says just five ships. There is some Q&A evidence this has been ruled on before, the staff is currently very busy with something else at the momement and we will address this later.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 11:46 am: Edit

FEAR, since you seem to be answering some questions, there are a few other matters asked in previous posts. I'm thinking of one in particular regarding the interaction between colonies earned from high risk survey and those that are built the normal way.

Just a friendly reminder.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Fear said:
________________________________________
Quote:
As for the other five ships, the rule says just five ships. There is some Q&A evidence this has been ruled on before, the staff is currently very busy with something else at the momement and we will address this later.
________________________________________

The 2010 version of (601.12) states:
________________________________________
Quote:
but must leave six ships from the original fleet, including a command cruiser, in the two provinces.
________________________________________

Note the word original. This could be interpreted to mean that if you leave a FFG from CO then you could not build a standard FF to replace the FFG before you moved it out of the Marquis area.

Note that FEAR kindly answered my question. While I do not like the ruling I'm not appealing it beacuse he explained it to me in a way in which I understand why it works the way it does.

Mike, if I stepped on your toes, I most humbly beg your forgiveness.
By Mitchell Land (Toadkillerdog) on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 09:45 pm: Edit

Free Campaign: We're contemplating starting a Free Campaign and wondering how Production is conducted. Are races allowed to construct whatever they wish following Wartime construction rules? e.g. the Gorn can build, on the first turn (F168) DN, 3xHD, 4xBD.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 10:37 pm: Edit

I'd use a build up to that for the Gorns.

Use T1, 2, 3, 6 for production.
By Mitchell Land (Toadkillerdog) on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 07:32 pm: Edit

I'm not sure I follow your answer. Are you saying that on F168, use the builds specified in T1, 2, 3, and 6 as the build limit? Ar, are you saying on F168, use T1, on S169, use T2?

Either way, my take on the production rules is that they are specified the way they are because those particular empires were not at war, thus they were spending their EPs on other things. As war approached, they started to up their defense spending, hence the increase in PWC over time. However, since all that is supposition, I'm seeking clarification that it is indeed the case, and, given starting the game in a state of war, one can assume that they've done all the pre-tooling in order to be able to being Wartime Construction rates on GT1.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 07:45 pm: Edit

The Gorn's like other memebers of the Alliance have to ramp up their warship production schedules.

Use Turn 1 PWC for Turn 1 of the Scenario.
Use Turn 2 PWC for Turn 2 of the Scenario.
Use Turn 3 PWC for Turn 3 of the Scenario.
Use Turn 6 PWC for Turn 4 of the Scenario.
Use Turn 7 PWC for Turn 5 of the Scenario? (Ryan is that correct?)

You can ofcourse define your own, but in all cases may discover some sort of balance issue.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 08:16 pm: Edit

Mitchell,

In a free campaign the Gorn can go strait to full wartime production. Ships that are not yet available should be replaced by an equivalent legal substitution. For the DN build a CC in its place until the DN is available. The CM is unique in that it can be built right away from the HD as the Gorn planned it from the start.
By Mitchell Land (Toadkillerdog) on Friday, March 19, 2010 - 03:38 pm: Edit

Is that the official response?
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Friday, March 19, 2010 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Nothing is official unless it comes from Mike Curtis, Chuck Strong, or SVC himself.

However, Ryan Opel basically owns the OOB's and his input would likely be solicited by Mike Curtis to answer your question. I'd go with that in your position.

Either that, or use the "East Wind" rules from Planetary Operations, which has the Gorn at war from Turn 1.
By Mitchell Land (Toadkillerdog) on Friday, March 19, 2010 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Thanks, I'll await an answer from the FEAR, then.

In the meantime, I'll go with what Daniel said, not only because it is in line with my own thinking, but because it makes sense from a "historical" perspective (whatever that means).
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, March 19, 2010 - 05:05 pm: Edit

Go with what Ryan said. But, if you are running a non standard campaign all sorts of things play into the balance and you may have to tweek a few things for your game style.

We have been busy with other F&E business this last week. I will get to questions back logged next week.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 19, 2010 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Just musing out loud on the issue....

A free campaign can be anything the players want it to be.

If you want a campaign where everybody just jumps to the "normal wartime production rate" then you can all agree to that. If you want a campaign where the historical politics (e.g., Gorn reluctance to spend money on the military) then you can use the historical build rates. You could all agree to just play out the first four, or ten, turns with whatever build schedule you like but nobody goes to war (you might all agree to be on peacetime economics, or wartime economics, whatever you want) and you put the new construction ships where you want them. You could start the game in any arbitrary year to make more ship types available. The possibilities are endless.

In a "free" campaign, there is no hard and fast rule that says: "ADB is going to force the Gorn player to play like Steve Cole thinks the real Gorns would do it."
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, March 19, 2010 - 05:50 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
By Peter Bonfanti (Otherbonfanti) on Saturday, March 13, 2010 - 04:23 pm: Edit
For FEAR or anyone:

Rule 600.31 provides that up to six ships of an unreleased fleet may move operationally within that fleet's zone each turn. Are ships of unreleased fleets allowed to move strategically within their deployment zone? If so, is that counted within the limit of six?
As there's no enabling rule that I can find, my guess is that unreleased ships just can't move strategically, but I thought I'd check.
________________________________________
Ships in unreleased fleets can use Strategic Movement inside the fleet’s deployment zone or for (600.32); this counts against the empire’s overall limit.
By Peter Bonfanti (Otherbonfanti) on Friday, March 19, 2010 - 06:10 pm: Edit

I'm sorry, Chuck, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "overall limit." Are you saying that (600.32) establishes an overall limit of six ships that can be moved, by whatever means? Or simply that my strategic movement counts within my empire's overall limit of strat. moves, but is in a separate category from (600.32)?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 20, 2010 - 02:50 am: Edit

Strategic movement within an unreleased deployment zone and strategic movement to use (600.32) counts toward an empire's overall strategic movement limit.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, March 20, 2010 - 03:41 pm: Edit

According to 503.62, a Netural Zone hex can be captured if you move a unit through the hex AND if there are no adjacent enemy ships.

However, this ruling by Nick back in 2005 confuses things a bit:
________________________________________
Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 03:10 pm: Edit

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


What is the intent of the rule? Are NZ hexes captured as it is written, or does it indeed work the way Nick ruled in 2005?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, March 21, 2010 - 09:11 am: Edit

Question for FEAR

Under F&E 2010 have Theater Transports been changed in their ability to carry PDUs?

Under (509.1-K1) Groups of theater transports can perform this mission (509.22). (Emphasis added). This rule is reiterated under (509.22). (509.23) confirms explicitly that where groups of TTs are used, that means 3*TTs are needed. Thus, it appears that delivering one PDU takes 3*TTs under F&E 2010.

However, (539.72) of Strategic Operations states that a single TT can carry and deploy one PDU.

It appears that the F&E 2010 rules changed how theater transports can move and deploy PDUs, particularly moving one PDU now takes 3*TT vice 1*TT.

I assume that F&E 2010 controls, but Thomas Matthews has asserted in a game we are playing that the specific rule in Strategic Operation controls. I say that F&E 2010 is the newer product and thus has changed the rules.

I don't really care who is right, but I would like a definitive ruling. Please confirm as to which rule now controls.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 11:35 am: Edit

Under (516.32) The Klingon D5G acts as a LTT for certain missions as modified by (509.24) and other relavent rules and previous Questions and Answers by FEAR. The Klingon DWG (a heavy war cruiser variant of the D5G) also has the "t" in the special factors place marking it as a Tug.

My questions are simple:

1. Is the DWG limited to the same missions and restrictions as the D5G under (516.32) or does it have a the ability to do more because it's on a larger hull?

2. Does the DWG count against the LTT limit as well as the commando limit similar to the D5G?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 10:31 pm: Edit

Wouldn't the third warp engine mounted under the boom of the DWG block it using a pod? Or is the third engine of the D5W hull mounted above the deck house?
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, March 22, 2010 - 11:33 pm: Edit

The DWG description specifically says that it has the same ability and limitations on carrying a pod as the D5G. Furthermore there is a note in R10 that there is D5H (LTT) version of a D5W, as it isn't wide enough to carry two pods. Therefore the DWG isn't anymore "tug" capable than the D5G.

And the third engine is on top of the deckhouse, so it does not block the pod.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - 06:56 pm: Edit

Cool.
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 08:00 am: Edit

Mike,

Have a question concerning Flagship Escort groups and X-ships. Hypothetical example: I have a Kzin DNH I want to escort. The FEG rule says I can have 2 escorts, one of which must be size-4.

May I use an X-cruiser (BCX/CCX) as the large escort, and use a DW as the small one?

The adhoc rules say no BCH/DN escorts, and the SITS lists the X-cruisers as base hull type BC (Cruiser hull).

I realize that the X-ship loses 2 compot for the privilege, and loses it's 10-point "maul".
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 05:28 pm: Edit

Mike

Question regarding 542.27 - High Risk Survey.

If a 6 is rolled (Monster found) - does the survey ship miss the next opportunity to make any form of survey roll?

Reason why I think the answer is 'yes'

1) The turn a 6 is rolled, the ship HAS made a survey attempt for the turn, and therefore has not missed 'one turn of surveying'

2) On average dice, if there is no delay (assuming it's immediately repaired) in survey rolls, High Risk Survey mathmatically provides a greater return.

Example - 6 turns of rolling, with 1 of each result rolled (i.e. 1 through 6).

Empire gains
5 Ep's (one off)
1 Ep a turn for the rest of the game
3 Survey points

Empires Losses
21 Survey points (average 6D6 roll)
2 Ep's (repair ship - assuming it's a Heavy Cruiser Hull)

Early on (i.e. most favourable new province finding), thats the equivalent to 1 less province found - which is partially compensated by the Colony income, and later on, the empire will 'find' that province sooner. Thereby having both the province (and colony) income for 1 or 2 turns.

Lastly, later on, with higher levels of survey points required for each new province, High Risk Survey would gains even more than the 'low risk survey' approach.

In other words - without the actual missed turn of survey, the downside of High Risk Survey is far outweighed by the benefits.

Thanks
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Response to Survey question above.

I don't think Paul is right. If you look at the SoP first comes survey, then repairs. So, if you roll a "6" on HRS then the crippled survey ship may be repaired in the same turn on a subsequent step of the SoP (assuming offmap repair capacity). That means the newly repaired SR is locked and loaded for the next turn's survey duty.

I don't think Paul's point 1 is right. The fact that the survey ship made an *attempt* is irrelevant - it actually has failed to do any kind of survey and thus missed a turn of survey on the turn it is crippled. It generates no survey points; it's just crippled.

If Paul interpretation on point 1 were accepted, then you would lose *TWO* turns of survey - the turn you were crippled (no survey generated) and the subsequent turn as well.

Paul's point 2 is not relevant to the issue (the long term benefits outweigh the long term risks). It works like it's written to work. In fact, I have a tactical note on HRS highlighting it's value, that you will come out ahead in the long run if you use it *consistently*.

Paul's point 2 comes from the assumption that HRS was designed to be, or should be, less likely to generate a return in the long run. I don't think that assumption is necessarily warranted. Besides, fortune favors the bold - and it *is* still high risk. You still could lose out in the long run, and definitely in the short run.

Respectfully request ruling that a "6" on HRS does not mean two turns of lost survey (turn of crippling plus subsequent turn).
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Response to Survey Question.

I believe that a crippled Survey Ship must move from the Survey Region to the Repair Facility in order to be repaired. If that is true, it cannot be repaired in the same round that it is damaged as movement comes after the repair step. While the off map area is treated as one hex to simplify game mechanics for many rules it is not in fact one hex. The survey ship would not be co-located with the base while making it's survey die role.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 09:07 pm: Edit

The SR moves to/from the survey area/repair facility by operational movement only (no SMN to move by strategic movement) so it will lose two turns of survey (the turn it was crippled by HRS and the turn it will take to return to the survey area after repairs). Now it could be repaired by a field repair, but the lack of strat move...
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 10:55 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Response to Survey Question.

I believe that a crippled Survey Ship must move from the Survey Region to the Repair Facility in order to be repaired. If that is true, it cannot be repaired in the same round that it is damaged as movement comes after the repair step. While the off map area is treated as one hex to simplify game mechanics for many rules it is not in fact one hex. The survey ship would not be co-located with the base while making it's survey die role.
________________________________________
There is no separate survey region. The offmap area is one amorphous area. There is no movement back and forth between some survey area and the repair facility at the SB.

Mike Parker tried earlier to argue that 542.21 requires some separate "survey area" that requires extra time to travel to. Specifically, Mike P tried to argue that the Klingons could not do survey on CT2 because they would have to move their survey ships offmap on CT1, move again to the survey area on CT2, and then start surveying on CT3.

However, SVC himself ruled that there is no delay. Klingons begin survey on CT2.

Therefore, there is no moving to a separate survey area in the offmap. Therefore, the survey area is one huge hex (as far as the rules are concerned). Therefore, there is no moving from survey to repair and back. Therefore, a crippled SR can be repaired and brought back to survey duty for the very next turn.

I'm not saying it makes sense. Heck, the whole concept of a 7 hex long Zin area where the "first" operational movement pulse could start from is a balance issue not a "sense" issue. However, that does appear to be the rule.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, March 27, 2010 - 12:54 pm: Edit

SVC did rule that the Klingons can begin survey on CT2, but this does not change that survey ships do not sit at the SB and survey the vastness of the off map while parked. You got a survey role on the turn that your survey ship was crippled. You are then required by the rule to loose a turn of survey. That is not the turn that your ship was crippled. Your ship did get a survey role for that turn. Too bad that it ended in a crippled ship, it was still a survey role.
By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Saturday, March 27, 2010 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Obviously, ADB staff chooses the wording of rules very carefully. The result of '6' on HRS is "ship crippled, ship sent, lose one turn." This seems to imply that the ship is at a repair facility before Phase 2a of SoP (ie- the end of 1b) of the same turn the HRS was conducted. (542.27) does not say "...lose next turn's survey." So this is the turn lost (imo). The wording of the effect could have been different as really one could lose multiple turns of survey if the player chose not to repair the survey vessel at the earliest possible time.

Dan-
For 2cents: That's kind of how I saw it, at first. The SoP backs it up as well. There is no type of movement phase between the survey and repair phases. Since a '6' is really the only negative result, this effect from your point of view (and mine initially) makes it a real stinger (1 turn cripped and only found a monster, plus, 1 turn repairing)and thus the whole HRS thing a bit riskier yet still worth it.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, March 27, 2010 - 07:15 pm: Edit

(518.2)Deployment in combat question. SWACs are limited in the number that can be deployed by carriers, bases, and other units in a single combat round. My question is: are these cumulative, meaning a CVA with 2 SWACs defending a Starbase that also has 2 SWACs deploy all 4 in a combat round?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, March 27, 2010 - 09:35 pm: Edit

The whole survey argument devolves into what is meant by "lose on turn of survey." Nothing in the rules indicates that survey ships have to move back and forth between the offmap SB and the "survey area." Thus, the SoP means that you can be repaired immediately upon being crippled on a "6" during HRS.

However, you could still potentially lose a second turn of surveying, if that's how the rule is interpreted.

So, does "losing a turn" mean losing a "survey action" (Paul's way of looking at it) or "losing any benefit of the survey ship" (my way of looking at it).

If you are losing a "survey action," then you should be denied a roll with that ship on the following turn. If you are losing the benefit of the survey ship for one turn, then the turn you roll a "6" is it.

At this point, it's pretty much going to require a ruling as to what "losing one turn" means. I say "losing a turn" means you've lost the turn of survey when you are crippled. Paul says "losing a turn" means you have to lose the next survey action.

Either interpretation is reasonable, so let's get the ruling.
By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Sunday, March 28, 2010 - 01:18 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Either interpretation is reasonable, so let's get the ruling.
________________________________________

I agree. I'm just enjoying the posts from your game and hope nothing holds it up too long. I'm selfish like that and game updates are exciting!
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 28, 2010 - 01:28 pm: Edit

The turn a survey ship is crippled is not a lost turn of survey. You made a survey role and it went bad, but you still made a survey role. Tough cookies for you. There are risks to survey and this is a High Risk role.
By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Sunday, March 28, 2010 - 03:22 pm: Edit

Question: (Debate from General Discussions March 27-28, 2010)
________________________________________
Quote:
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Saturday, March 27, 2010 - 02:10 pm: Edit


Diplomatic income question.

The Romulans flipped the planet 3415 on turn 2. Does it produce 3eps on turn 3 since the Romulans are at a war-time economy? Can I save those eps or do I have to spend them each turn? I can't seem to find an answer to this in the archives.

Paul
________________________________________


My position:
________________________________________
Quote:
I'm pretty sure you get the EPs of the planet the same turn (T2 in your case) and can do whatever you want w/ them as it's considered 'diplomatic income'. It stands to reason that your new planet should produce at the same eco level as it's new parent empire (imho).
________________________________________

________________________________________
Quote:
Dan-

I respectfully disagree. Numerous references in the rule read contrary to your interpretation.

*(540.2):"Any EPs generated by diplomatic teams may be spent by the owning race even if at peace." The flipped neutral planet is the direct result, in this case, of diplomac manipulation.
*(540.251):"...defenses can be added to the planet and it produces income for the gaining race."
*(540.253):"If a neutral planet joins an empire, it produces income...".

[edit/clarify] There is no stipulation in any part of (540.xxx) that an empire not yet at war cannot use the EPs generated by this diplomatic result. The added EP benefit is outside of the inactive empire's budget which has already been balanced (at w/e production level of the empire gaining the flipped planet) and which is itself unuseable for game purposes.
________________________________________

________________________________________
Quote:
(540.251) clearly states the specific exception to (600.321). This seems purposeful to me as well as enabling w/ regards to PDU increases and added EP useage.
________________________________________


Is my interpretation wrong?
By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Sunday, March 28, 2010 - 03:39 pm: Edit

(Apologies.) The counter argument is that flipped neutral planets do not generate useable income until the new parent empire is active and 'at war' and may not be able to increase PDU defenses.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, March 28, 2010 - 07:41 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
I agree. I'm just enjoying the posts from your game and hope nothing holds it up too long. I'm selfish like that and game updates are exciting!
________________________________________
Naw. At this point, the debate is academic since I haven't rolled a 6 yet. Even if it were an active dispute, I'm sure we would find some way to resolve it temporarily and keep playing. Official rulings sometimes can take a while, and there's no point in holding up a gentleman's game.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Monday, March 29, 2010 - 08:25 am: Edit

Andrew Bruno,

This has been ruled on previously by FEAR. In essence since NZ planets do NOT join your SM Grid the income generated sits on the planet and maybe spent for PDU's but that is about it. It does NOT flow to your treasury as Diplomatic income.

This rather put the kybosh on using Dips to sway NZ planets in my games.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, March 29, 2010 - 12:04 pm: Edit

QUESTIONS DOWNLOADED TO THIS POINT
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Monday, March 29, 2010 - 12:36 pm: Edit

I found the ruling Q&E May 5th 2008
________________________________________
Quote:

Ted Fay:
Q1: Can the Federation add PDUs to a formerly neutral planet (went to Federation side as a result of diplomacy) when the Federation is at limited war after turn 7?

A1: (602.49B) specifically disallows deployment of PDUs in unreleased fleet areas. (540.253) allows a neutral planet that joins your empire to have PDUs added to it up to the normal limit. It does not say you are limited by the war status of that PDU. It goes on to further say that the neutral planet is not part of the supply or strategic movement grid of until the turn after the race is at war with or allied to the other adjoining race. So, the neutral planet is a partial supply grid until war is declared or an alliance is signed. The neutral planet can save up its eps and buy PDUs from that supply of eps but, cannot have eps brought in for PDU or other base upgrades. (540.251) also attaches the planet to the adjacent neutral zone and activates the planet when the fleet goes active.
________________________________________
By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Monday, March 29, 2010 - 02:01 pm: Edit

MP-
yeah. So less than I thought and more than Dan/Tom were thinking. Figures, lol. Thanks.
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Monday, March 29, 2010 - 02:07 pm: Edit

If the planet saves the eps it generates then once the controlling Empire is at war with it's neighbor those eps will flow into the treasury as part of the normal procedure for partial grids rejoining the main grid?

Does the planet still produce at the economic level of the controlling Empire?

Paul
By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Monday, March 29, 2010 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Q: Could a TT be used as a diplomatic vessel and still carry cargo/perform tuglette functions (ie- p/u EPs and carry and deploy a PDU) as long as the DT remains on board?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 29, 2010 - 08:52 pm: Edit

To FEAR: Diplomatic Ruling from 5 May 2008 does not cover the ruling requested on Neutral Planets joining an Empire. The example from 5 May 2008 has the Federation at Limited War and the planet does generate income when at Limited War but would require a transport to pick it up each turn or be required to spend it on it's own due to the Supply Grid restrictions.

The current dispute covers peace time spending of an inactive Empire. Please consider whether a formerly neutral planet generates income that is saved up when at peace time economic status before having ever been at a wartime status.
By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Saturday, April 03, 2010 - 05:34 pm: Edit

I have another newbie question. I have a Sector map for A,B,and D. Has sector C been published and where? Are there any other sector maps I am missing?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, April 06, 2010 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Question on SO - Rule 540.23 Trade.

This confirms that 'any ep's generated under the this rule in peacetime could be spent at the owners discretion.'

Is there a list of what is permitted - taking into account Scenario restrictions?

I can only think of Orion's and repairs on ships crippled fighting the Orions (and rebuilding commerical convoys) - which hardly seems to be 'at the owners discretion'.

Examples -

Can a ship be converted (I think 'yes'), bases and overbuilds - Unlikely (due to Peacetime rules so both 'no').

Edit - Actually - the answer to both might be yes - as the normal rule is that a Specific Rule (owners discretion) overules the general rule (no builds/conversions while at peace). Hope this helps!

Thanks
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 06, 2010 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Paul's argument under 540.23 is that diplomatic income EPs may be spent at "owners discretion," and hence may be used to convert unreleased ships of an empire not at war. However, it's the other way around; 540.23 is the general rule that is overridden by the specific rules of 600.32 and 601.162.

540.23 simply says "spent at owners discretion" - which is about as general as you can get. In contrast, 600.32 and 601.162 provide concrete limitations. Thus, these two rules are specific and 540.23 is the general.

For this reason, diplomatic income cannot be used to convert unreleased ships unless the empire is at war. 600.32. In the general war, the Hydrans are particularly forbidden from either building or converting ships before they are at war. 601.162.

IMHO, "at owners discretion" in 540.23 is misleading; in acutality it should be "at owner's discretion within the limits of other rules."

Thus, for some stages of the general war at some empires, that very well might mean that there is nothing you can do but save those diplomatic points.


Here's another way to look at it: If Paul's interpretation that 540.23 is the "specific" rule that overrides other rules, then the Hydrans can spend those diplomatic points to build an ID or an IC or pretty much anything else they want - because the "specific" rule of "spent at discretion" overrides the "general" rule of the YIS limits on these units. Clearly, this result is not correct; thus, likewise, 600.32 and 601.162 are the "specific" rules that override the "general" rule of 540.23.
By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Tuesday, April 06, 2010 - 10:31 pm: Edit

I wanna hear this...
By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Thursday, April 08, 2010 - 02:32 am: Edit

What I'm lokking for is the intent of the rule. Prolly the whole (540.xx) rule...
(540.xx) is becoming less attractive/intriguing by the minute, IMHO.

C'mon Mike. I would like to hear from you, buddy.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, April 08, 2010 - 03:24 am: Edit

Planetary Ops Question -

I think this is fairly clear cut, but Ted has a different interpretation (and to be fair, the first time I read the rule, I came up with a similar interpretation, but after re-reading it, changed my interpretation).

320.1 - Advanced Raids.

320.12 Confirms any Empire may conduct one special raid per turn.

It then confirms in addition, that the Kzinti may conduct two drone raids.

The example then confirms the Kzinti can conduct 1 PF/Fighter Raid and two drone raids - or three drone raids.

Ted thinks the example is wrong, and the Kzinti can only ever do a maximum of 2 drone Raids.

Question/Comfirmation?
Can the Kzinti do Three Drone Raids (and the Federation and Klingons can do two Drone Raids)?

(It is noted. that until the Raid pool expands, atleast one of the Kzinti Drone Raids has to be an 'On Map' Raid and if they do 3/2 drone raids respetively, they can't do a Figher/PF raid)

Thanks
By Mike Dowd (Duellist_69) on Thursday, April 08, 2010 - 05:44 pm: Edit

A question regarding Hydran production:

In (709.4) Production Notes, it states:

"Capital: If the Hydran capital is not captured by an enemy before the Hydran Y173S turn, the Hydrans begin their Y176-177 production schedule at that time."

Does this mean that the Hydrans get access to the MHK, DWF, DWH designs and variants 2 years ahead of the printed schedule in the MSIT, or are they simply production slots that can be used for downgrade substitutions?

Please advise, since the Hydran player will be coming over for another turn this weekend!
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Thursday, April 08, 2010 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Originally just the DWs, I don't think the NCAs available until Y175 in any case...
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, April 09, 2010 - 10:07 am: Edit

Although I originally opposed the idea of the rules supporting three Zin drone raids, I now concede the point to Paul Howard (Thursday, April 8, 2010) that this is fully correct.

From rule 320.12: "Any race may conduct one special raid per turn; the Lyrans can conduct two but only if both are PF raids. In addition, the Kzintis may conduct two drone raids per turn, while the Klingons and Federation may conduct one drone raid each." (emphasis supplied).

A special raid is one of a drone raid, PF raid, or fighter raid. Any race can perform one of these. The words "in addition" clearly indicate increased limits to the one specified. If the Zin use their "one allowed" special raid as a drone raid, they can have "in addition" two more drone raids, resulting in three drone raids. This is confirmed by the later example in the same rule specifying three Zin drone raids.

I can admit it when I'm wrong.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 08:23 am: Edit

I wrote
________________________________________
Quote:
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?
________________________________________


The answer is 2. The question was previously answered in CL32. It also uses the B-10 table for resolving attempts. Thank you SVC for the F&E Compendium.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, April 19, 2010 - 03:59 pm: Edit

FEAR, sorry to chase - but my game with Ted is now at Alliance turn 3 (and so very relevant) - Can I please have an answer to this question ASAP?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, April 06, 2010 - 03:39 pm: Edit


Question on SO - Rule 540.23 Trade.

Thanks

Paul
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Paul,
I'll look into this when I get home this evening.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 03:21 am: Edit

Ref (540.2) Diplomatic Income

Both (540.23) and (540.22) are very specific rules; they specifically state that EPs generated in peacetime can be spent freely or be saved at the owner's discretion.

(600.32) is a generalized basic edition rule written well before the very specific and later SO rule.

(601.162) is a generalized F&E basic scenario rule (see (601.1) title) that states that the Hydrans are on a wartime economy, however they not receiving EP for being on this footing but receive their PWC in lieu of their production schedule and cash. The specific rules (540.23) and (540.22) would permit the very small amount of diplomatic EPs to be used at the owner's discretion, however, one can't build something that doesn't yet exist for the given time period.

Ted: Let's face it, the Hydrans have two DIPs; the Feds/Gorns could have one apiece for an absolute maximum of 4 EP per turn over 3 turns (Y168F/Y169S/Y169F) this is not going to be enough to build a ID or IC which neither can be even be built until after Y170.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 09:56 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Ted: Let's face it, the Hydrans have two DIPs; the Feds/Gorns could have one apiece for an absolute maximum of 4 EP per turn over 3 turns (Y168F/Y169S/Y169F) this is not going to be enough to build a ID or IC which neither can be even be built until after Y170.
________________________________________

Chuck,

Thank you for issuing a ruling quickly, that is greatly appreciated. I respectfully appeal for the reasons given below.

Minor note: your post doesn't actually say that diplomatic income can be spent freely in spite of pre-war scenario restrictions. However, that clearly appears to be your ruling. You want to add a sentence to that effect?

Here is my one appeal and then leave it at that.

I don't understand how 540.22 and 540.23 can be considered specific rules. They just say that economic points can be spent "freely." That is very general language. That general language should be limited by other rules, such as YIS, scenario rules, or others, or else the player can spend those points on anything. While your ruling does specifically address YIS, I think that result (YIS still limits diplo income) conflicts with the underlying reasoning that 540 is a "specific" rule. If 540 is "specific" then why is YIS not overriden by the "specific" rule that diplo pre-war income can be spent freely?

I also respectfully submit that the ruling leads to the conclusion that 540 pre-war income may be used in violation of any specific scenario restrictions, particularly if the scenario was published before SO. Is this the result that is desired?

Another possibly unintended result: There are currently rulings posted (I'd have to look them up) that the Federation may not convert ships of unreleased fleets while they are at limited war. If 540 income is a "specific" rule, then diplomatic income may be "freely" used to overcome this ruling and convert ships in the unreleased fleets.

Over 5 turns (turns 2-6), at roughly 4 EPs per turn, that is 20 EPs to the Federation, which can convert a significant number of units that otherwise are not allowed to be converted. The Romulans are even greater, at roughly 5 EPs per turn over 8 turns (turns 2-9) they generate nearly 40 EPs of diplomatic income that can then be used to convert maulers (WE->FAL), scouts, or even build 8 SPs outright (almost a fleet). Are these results intended?

Finally, my primary concern is not the Hydrans building an ID or IC; that was hyperbole for which I apologize. My primary concern is that the Hydrans will convert two more THRs, which will significantly increase the probability that the exepedition will succeed through the availablity of 2 more ship equivalents that can move 7 hexes. That, IMHO, is bad for the game.

Also please note that your calculation is slightly off as you forgot the Zin diplomat. Realistically, the Hydrans can expect 5 EPs (2*Hydran, Zin, Fed, Gorn) on turn 2 (they moved turn 1) and 1 EP turn 3 (recalled diplomats on turn 2 so they're not lost; 1 in LDR) - making 6 EPs, which is just enough for 2*THR.

Thank you for considering my appeal.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 10:53 am: Edit

Ted,

What's the path for the Kzinti diplomat trade income?

Although the Klingon don't block trade between the Feds and Hydrans, since they're at peace with both races, you can't get from Kzinti to Hydrax without using at least one Klingon or Lyran strat-move node. Why would you expect that the Kzinti could use such a path?

-----------------------

From another point, reconsider your timeline. The Hydrans get no diplomatic income on T1, and the maximum 4 EP on T2 will allow them to convert only one THR. And on T3 they don't need diplomatic income to convert a 2nd THR, since they're "at war" on that turn anyway, and regardless of Chuck's ruling can already convert a 2nd THR.

So, the most you're talking about is an increase of exactly one THR, not two. Oh, and this doesn't even require conversion of an existing ship. It can simply be a substitution of a THR for the T2 RN.

So, is it really likely that stopping the Expedition is possible without that ship, but not possible (or too expensive) with that ship?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 11:12 am: Edit

Matthew,

Points well taken, I stand corrected. However, even one THR is substantial. The enormous flexibility the Hydrans get for the A3 opener makes defending against the expedition hard, as you have to close off *all* possible routes, the northern routes being the most dangerous due to Zin assistance.

Additionally, your points don't change the fact that the Feds are getting 20 points of pre-war conversions and construction and the Roms are getting a whopping 40 points of pre-war conversions and construction.

Frankly, I'm amazed the Alliance players are not jumping up and down and screaming bloody murder over that. The Roms can do *alot* with 40 EPs over 8 turns. The 8 turns of time is nearly as valuable as the EPs, as you get that many more major conversions. Then again, the Gorns get 40 EPs of pre-war conversions and construction.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Adding extra THRs does nothing for the Expedition unless you have the additional diplomats to deliver to the Federation. The Hydrans only have two and one is needed to hold down the LDR.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Pre-war production schedules are controlled and released by the rules. The Hydrans, Feds, Tholians, Romulans and Gorns all have PWC sheduleds that override their standard schedules. You cannot use DIP income to purchase ships off of a schedule that does not exist; one could overbuild an SP for 10EP but one cannot claim to purchase one off of a non-existant schedule. You also cannot purchase any item that have not been invented yet.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 03:00 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Pre-war production schedules are controlled and released by the rules. The Hydrans, Feds, Tholians, Romulans and Gorns all have PWC sheduleds that override their standard schedules. You cannot use DIP income to purchase ships off of a schedule that does not exist; one could overbuild an SP for 10EP but one cannot claim to purchase one off of a non-existant schedule. You also cannot purchase any item that have not been invented yet.
________________________________________


Respectfully request you add these to a unified ruling so that no one can argue that "spent freely" means they can ignore production schedules or YIS limitations.

Submit that extra THRs do help the expedition, because they provide SEs that allow the one THR that *DOES* have a diplomat to be more likely to make it. However, the ruling is the ruling.


In the meantime, with diplomat income on turns 2-8 my Roms will convert 3 extra SPCs for survey duty (15 EPs) and buy 3 extra survey slots (9 EPs) so that when they enter they can max out on surveying on-map territory and then off-map territory right away, without delay. That leaves me 16 extra EPs which will conveniently allow me to convert 3*WE to 3*FAL (or maybe it's better to convert 5*WE to 5*KE instead).

Kewl!
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 03:24 pm: Edit

How can the Romulans buy survey slots when they don't yet know that there is an off-map area to survey? I would think that the off-map area would need to be "discovered" before you could buy any survey slots.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Ted:

Please read 704.2. The PWC schedule only permits one WE/KE conversion per turn so the Romulan player can only buy this type of conversion when it is NOT being performed on a given pre-war turn.

If PWC is chewing-up a given capacity then you can't override it unless you pay the override costs. If PWC is chewing-up a major conversion in a given turn then you cannot make a major conversion that turn unless you buy one. If a scout is produced in PWC for a given turn then you can assume that the one scout substitution for that turn is used. If PWC is using up all the conversion capacity for a give turn then you cannot buy a conversion for that turn.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 04:29 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
How can the Romulans buy survey slots when they don't yet know that there is an off-map area to survey? I would think that the off-map area would need to be "discovered" before you could buy any survey slots.
________________________________________
Easily. I can spend my diplomatic income "freely;" in other words, any way I want. The ruling is that this is a "specific" rule that's going to override other general rules; except as noted in the ruling with regard to production, conversion, and YIS limits. In other words, 540 is a specific rule which overrides the general idea that the Roms haven't been to the offmap area yet.

Although I'd say it's easy enough to get around. Just keep 9 of your EPs and buy all 3 survey slots at once you get to the offmap area (the survey rules don't limit how many slots you can buy at once). Or maybe keep the points and buy a shiny new FAB once the Roms enter the war and it's YIS comes up.
________________________________________
Quote:
Please read 704.2. The PWC schedule only permits one WE/KE conversion per turn so the Romulan player can only buy this type of conversion when it is NOT being performed on a given pre-war turn.
________________________________________
Agreed. Per the PWC that would only be on turns 5 and 7, so the Roms are limited to 2*WE->2*KE for 6 EPs at most. I'd probably spend EPs on the FALs or Scouts for the rest (since converting scouts is not limited other than by facility and EPs).
________________________________________
Quote:
If PWC is chewing-up a major conversion in a given turn then you cannot make a major conversion that turn unless you buy one.
________________________________________
True. Fortunately the Roms get two of those a turn. Based on my reading of the PWC I only see one major conversion - the KC9 on turn 8. The only other conversions are the three free SPC conversions on turn 9.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 06:43 pm: Edit

As someone that had worked through a Rom Diplomatic construction sheet before I realized the income cannot be used for that.. they can do Major Conversions. Mostly the WE->FAL and here are two very nice Minor COnversions too.

SP + 3ep => FH
FH + 2+12 => FAK

I would do a bevy of the SP to FH... BUT with that said I have NOT looked at what the Gorn's do with their Dip EP.. that might very well balance it out.. they have some nice conversions also. And while they only get one Major I think they rarely if ever use it in their schedule. in Y173 if they set things up right they can do alot of HD to CM conversions with that income!
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 07:02 pm: Edit

Don't forget you have one 3pt WE>KE conversion in the build schedule to account for in the production schedule.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 07:17 pm: Edit

I'm personally a fan of getting the extra survey ships for the Feds/Roms/Gorn. Let's all three really ramp up the economy once they enter the war. Also the Gorn can convert a bunch of LSCs, which can give them a huge EW advantage from the word go. The CM conversion isn't until the turn before they enter the war, so that one's limited.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 02:01 am: Edit

Gorn LSC conversions are still limited to one per year after the one free conversion of Y170.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 08:23 am: Edit

Robert,

Yep HD => CM is limited. The gorn only have 5 SB's on the map so.. that would be 5 conversions on each of two turn.. unless you want to make one of the conversions a CV or something.

I also like the scouts but as Chuck pointed out the LSC is limited.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras07) on Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 09:48 am: Edit

Well You can only do 1 HD=>CM per turn till like 176. But there are still plenty of CL conversions the Gorns would be doing.
By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 06:18 pm: Edit

You can in some circumstances do up to three conversions at a starbase.
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Sunday, April 25, 2010 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Moving this here from the general board

PRD question. The Lyrans want to build a PRD at 1407. The Lyrans have a MB deployed there so it's part of their main grid.

I don't see anything in the rules which states that you can't build a PRD at an allies planet. I have search the bbs and not found anything regarding this either. Does anyone know if there has been a ruling about this that I can't find, or is it ok to build the PRD there.

Paul
By Kevin Sanders (Boogaboo) on Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - 08:40 am: Edit

Hi all,
Really simple rule question:

Have 2010 version. Where do you find the rules re: FRD functions? Ie. How much do they repair each turn? Is this an "expansion" rule set? I see basic info on the FRDs and counters in the Basic set but.....

Thanks
Kevin
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - 09:18 am: Edit

the repair capacity for a FRD is 12 points and if I remember correctly is found in 420.0.
By Kevin Sanders (Boogaboo) on Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - 12:25 pm: Edit

Yep. Thanks again.... I just can't read it seems.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Nice big list of them in (420.4) as part of the stuff from expansions being cross referenced for ease of locating things. Sorry about my short reply above but that was from my phone.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 03:57 am: Edit

FEAR - Question on Strategic Operations - APT (and Prime Transports) - 539.134 and 539.234 (same question for both).

'This ship could transport four spare Fighter Factors'.

Is there a cost for these 4 fighters, and if so how much? Also, when is that cost paid?

(In the dicussion topic I am querying if other than drone transport, 539.134 and 539.234 should be removed from the game, as both the other points seem to allow significant free benefits - which not only duplicate the unique Hydran supply tug - but are actually better than it!

A) The 2 ship supply points can be refilled if back in supply, unlimited times

B) 4 potentially Free Fighter factors is better than the paid for Hydran FCP!

Your throughts on this would be much appreciated.)
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 01:33 pm: Edit

OK, rules question:

By rule 503.622 a neutral zone hex is captured if it is occupied, or if the capturing player was the last to move a unit through it and no enemy ships are in or adjacent to the neutral zone hex.

My question is, what happens if I move a ship through a previously captured neutral zone hex, and there is an enemy ship adjacent to that hex? Does the hex revert to being an unclaimed neutral zone hex? Or does it's ownership stay unchanged?

Example:
Neutral zone hex 2002 is Klingon owned. There are Klingon ships in the adjacent hex 2003. The Kzinti move ships into 2002, on their way to a different destination hex. What happens to hex 2002? Clearly it cannot become Kzinti owned unless they leave a ship in the hex. But can the hex be "reset" to have no owner while the Kzinti are passing through?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 01:52 pm: Edit

Reply to Robert's question:

The text of rule 503.622 itself does not provide for "unclaiming" a province; just how to claim it. Thus, it appears that the rules do not support the interpretation that the NZ hex would refert to being unowned in Robert's example.

However, I think there was a pre-2010 ruling that said otherwise? If so, I don't know the basis of the ruling and whether or not it applies now.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Logical comment on Roberts and Ted comment.

With a games normal progress, it would be very very difficult until mid to late war for the Alliance to either recapture or atleast return to neutral the NZ's - as it's alot easier for the Coalition to keep their border bases and keep a ship on each - thereby having a ship next to all NZ hexes.

The Alliance on the other hand can't do this - and so until the Alliance counterattack happens (turn 18+++?), all those NZ hexes would remain Coalition and a significant increase to their income (which I do not believe was factored into the rule changes in 2010).

Logically, the Alliance would be able to atleast neutralise ownership of the NZ hexes (without using the raiding rules) and when the counterattacks start to reduce the Coalition border bases, capture them at a later date.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 02:43 pm: Edit

I agree with Paul Howard's analysis.

However, I still think the rules as-written do not support "unclaiming" (i.e., removing a claim) to a province - except by claiming it for yourself.

Besides, I do not think that the result is really a bad thing, as it is part of the overall game balance. However, if the result is determined to adversely affect game balance, then I submit that a re-affirmation of the previous ruling is needed.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Guys,

I'm not FEAR, but I hope this question isn't holding up a game....

I can see no way that Mike would decide that "the last to move a unit through" means anything other than exactly what it says.

I've been surprised before, but this one looks pretty black-and-white.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 03:33 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Guys,

I'm not FEAR, but I hope this question isn't holding up a game....

I can see no way that Mike would decide that "the last to move a unit through" means anything other than exactly what it says.

I've been surprised before, but this one looks pretty black-and-white.
________________________________________
That's not the issue, it's the qualifier that comes after that seems "black letter". Here's the whole relevant sentence:
________________________________________
Quote:
(503.622) A neutral zone hex is "captured" if it is occupied, or if the capturing player was the last to move a unit through it and no enemy ships are in or adjacent to the neutral zone hex.
________________________________________
Emphasis supplied to show sentence structure.

However, more telling is that nothing in 503.62 provides for "unclaiming" or "removing another player's claim" to a NZ hex. You can override MY claim by staking your OWN claim under the conditions of the rule - but there's nothing there that means that you undo my claim without establishing your own.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 03:57 pm: Edit

You do have the option of moving through without claiming the hex. However, I believe by default you are assumed to claim the hex unless you say otherwise. See also (438.0) and (448.0) and (314.27). The aforementioned rules will have an effect of neutral zone hexes as well.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Ted,

I think you're reading way too much into it.

Of course there's a "removing another player's claim" rule.

It's the rule that says "last to move a unit through it."

Furthermore, at the very moment that the Kzinti ship is in 2002, it is clearly "occupied" and the Kzinti meets the requirement to claim the hex. He does so immediately. He is not required to remain. Then he elects to leave the hex, and since he doesn't meet the other condition of the rule "last to move through AND no enemy ships in or adjacent to" then it reverts to unclaimed.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Matthew,

I disagree. Occupation as simple move through can't be enough if an enemy ship is adjacent, because otherwise the rest of the sentence would be meaningless.

Also, under your argument, it WOULD be Zin captured because it was "occupied" at the moment of move-through (thereby meeting the definition of "captured" under the rule).

If you are right, then what is the meaning of, "and no enemy ships are in or adjacent to the neutral zone hex?" The "or" applies the definition of captured.

I'm don't think I'm reading way too much into it. I think I'm reading the black letter of the rule.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 04:32 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
If you are right, then what is the meaning of, "and no enemy ships are in or adjacent to the neutral zone hex?" The "or" applies the definition of captured.
________________________________________


At the moment the Kzinti are in the hex, they meet the conditions to capture. And that is a single condition (preceeding the "OR" in the rule.) That condition is simply "occupied."

For the hex to remain Kzinti owned upon departure, there must not be any enemy units nearby. In this case, there are, in 2003.

Once they leave, they do not meet all conditions to have a continuing claim on the hex, so their claim is null, reverting to un-owned. *THAT'S* the purpose of the "no enemy ships adjacent." It takes away the claim.

But at least now I see a way the rule could be misread. I'm reading the rule as if there's a semi-colon after the word "occupied." I think you're reading the rule as if "and no enemy ships are in or adjacent to the neutral zone hex" applies to both the condition of "occupied" and the condition of "last to move through."

OK, so one of us is wrong. I at least now see how the rule could be confused. (Where's reverse Polish notation when you need it.) Is there a ; in the rules? Or is it just a ,?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 05:19 pm: Edit

Agreed it's not necessarily clear as day, but I think it's still clear enough to be black letter. I don't think a semicolon would be right since what follows the comma is a dependent clause (as opposed to an independent clause).

I'm reading the rule that the NZ hex is "captured" if A or B. A is occupied. B is move through, except if enemy ship is in or adjacent. If you look at it THAT way, then there is no removal of another player's claim - just replacement of his claim in favor of yours.

I'd also note that your interpretation would vitate my claim to the NZ hex if I had a ship *IN* the hex when you moved through it and left it, which doesn't seem right. After all, you "occupied" it the hex when you moved through - whether or not I had a ship there. That doesn't seem right somehow.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 05:23 pm: Edit

I agree with Matthew - by the conditions of the rule, at the end of the move, neither side can claim that they were the last to move through the hex, *and* that no enemy ships are adjacent.

Therefore, the hex is by the conditions of the rules unclaimed at the end of the move, regardless of any previous claims.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 05:33 pm: Edit

I would also point out that the wording in the new 2010 rules compared to the older 2K rules looks to be the same for the question I am asking.

Bearing that in mind, Nick Black made a ruling *ages* ago that basically said that you can capture a NZ hex even if there are adjacent enemy ships to it. But you cannot draw income from a NZ hex that has adjacent enemy ships to it. I can find the ruling, but not on my cell phone, so it would have to wait until tomorrow.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 06:03 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
I agree with Matthew - by the conditions of the rule, at the end of the move, neither side can claim that they were the last to move through the hex, *and* that no enemy ships are adjacent.

Therefore, the hex is by the conditions of the rules unclaimed at the end of the move, regardless of any previous claims.
________________________________________
I think that this argument is vitiated by the fact that who last moved through the hex is irrelevant if there's an enemy ship adjacent. What is relevant is that you capture a NZ hex by either A) occupation or B) move through IF no enemy ship is adjacent.

Basically, if you don't claim the NZ hex yourself it is not changing status. The rule doesn't support changing the status of the NZ hex except by actually claiming it under the conditions stated.

If you don't claim it, and the rules don't say otherwise, it's not possible to say that that the NZ hex changed status.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 07:06 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
I don't think a semicolon would be right since what follows the comma is a dependent clause (as opposed to an independent clause).
________________________________________


You're probably right, which is why I don't like using English to describe what is essentially a logic function.

There are multiple logic statements in the "capture a NZ hex" rule.

A = "Occupy the hex during op-move."
B = "Last to occupuy the hex during op-move."
C = "No Enemy ship in or adjacent to the hex."

During the econ phase, you ask yourself the following: Which of these hexes can I claim?

Either the equation for each hex is A .or. (B .and. C) or the equation is (A .or. B) .and. C.

Logical descriptions would make the rule unambiguous, but also unreadable to most people. So, we use English. It's less precise, but much more readable. [Edit to correct "more more" to "but much more"]
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 07:09 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Logical descriptions would make the rule unambiguous, but also unreadable to most people. So, we use English. It's less precise, more more readable.
________________________________________
On this point, I must agree.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 09:31 am: Edit

FEAR,

(302.352) states that the NVH (in Fighter Ops, and then moved to Advanced Ops) has 9 fighter factors which count as a ship equivalent, and the nominal group is 6 fighter factors. Shouldn't the nominal group be 8 fighter factors as the NVH carries F-111s, (527.2) the Federation version of PFs and if supplied from a partial grid use standard F-101 Heavy Fighters, rather than the special F-111 Heavy Fighters?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 01:14 pm: Edit

Q509.1 Does the Hydran MTG upgrade a MB to a BATS as the regular production Tug or does it take two of them to perform the base upgrade as the LTTs do?

A509.1 Yes, it is nearly the same size as a cruiser based tug.]

Q509.1 What are tug missions X, Y, Z, AA and AB? I have not been able to find them in the rulebook.

A509.1 In the 2010 edition these missions are designated. AA and AB are J3 and J4 respectively in the 2010 edition.

Q446.15 provides that a race could develop one colony in the offmap area for every five new provinces surveyed there (not including pre-game "at start" provinces).

(542.27) provides that, upon rolling a 2, you create an off-map colony without going through the colony set up rules. If more than one colony already exists per off-map province, no effect. This colony is created in zero time and at zero cost.

My question is this: Do colonies obtained using HRS (high risk survey) count against the limits imposed by 446.15?

In other words, say I have surveyed 5 offmap provinces in addition to the starting offmap provinces. On a previous turn I rolled a "2" using HRS and got my first "free" colony. Per 446.15 I am now able to start normal colony development for one colony. However, if the "free" colony I obtained by HRS counts against the limit in 446.15, then I will have to wait until I have surveyed my 10th additional offmap province before developing another offmap colony.

A446.15 The limits imposed by (446.15) are for colonial development by standard methods delineated in (446.1). High risk survey (542.27) allows for the possibility of receiving more colonies. The limits in (446.1) are for both types of colonies. The limits for (542.27) are for the number of provinces. So, for example, if you have four provinces surveyed you cannot develop any colonies but could find one via (542.27). Another example: You have ten provinces discovered and a number of colonies greater than two you cannot develop more (446.15), but could find up to eight more by (542.27).

Q508.3 What is the SFB equivalent of a PDU? DefSats? GBDS? A mine package? A combination of those? Or something else entirely?

A508.3 Like most things in F&E direct correlation to SFB is very difficult to do at times. PDUs (508.3) are one of these. A PDU is a combination of ground phaser, racial heavy weapon, warning, barracks, etc. units. The exact combination is unimportant in game terms. Your efficient staff makes sure you have the right combination as you have bigger concerns to worry about.
Q449.11 Can Klingons perform WYN trade via blockade running on turn 1 of the general war?

They definitely accumulate trade rights. 449.11. However, 601.161 forbid the Klingon Empire from leaving their territory on turn 1 of the GW scenario.

I find no enabling rule that provides an exception to 601.161; so my guess is that the answer to my question is "no."

However, it makes little sense to me to negotiate trade rights and then be unable to actually trade. So, maybe there's an oversight somewhere and it's meant to be allowed for the Klingons to blockade run EPs to the WYN on turn 1? Hence, it's possible that the answer might be "yes."

A449.11 The Klingon Empire can use a blockade run to go and return from the WYN cluster in the raid phase (3A). This allows the Klingon Empire to send a transport ship clandestinely to the WYN zone to exchange Economic Points with the WYN Cluster.

Q450.16: Rule (709.3) allows one Hydran DWF per turn as a substitution for an FF prior to 176F, and allows no additional conversions with a maximum of four prototype DW hulls during the 7 turns from 173S to 176S (inclusive). Rule (450.1) allows the Hydrans to begin production of two DW ship yards when DW class ships become available. Rule (450.16) restricts minor ship yards to ships that are all ready on the production schedule. Can the Hydran begin building a DW minor ship yard starting in 173S when DWs first becomes available as a substitution on their schedule? This would allow DW production at these minor ship yards as early as 174F as the ship is effectively on the schedule as a substitution. Or are they required to wait to 176F to build a DW minor ship yard when the DW becomes a standard part of their production schedule? Would this change if the Hydrans still hold their ship yard in 173S, which allows the Hydrans to begin their Y176 production schedule early? In addition, would the four prototype DW hull limit include production of DWs from minor ship yards?

A450.16: (450.16) specifically states that a minor shipyard cannot begin building until the class is on the production schedule (bold for emphasis). Until the DW is on the production schedule by either print or by rule a minor shipyard for that class cannot be built. This means you cannot use the allowed substitution to count as being on the schedule.

If the Hydrans still hold their ship yard in S173 and get their S176 production schedule moved up, then they can start the DW minor shipyard on S173, but not before.

Q507.2 "...Command points, admirals, and drone ships cannot be used establishing the size of a Reserve." - Doesn't that just mean that drone ships cannot extend the size of the Reserve battle force by being in the support line (up to 3 platforms) and thus avoid CR limit of the Reserve Command Ship? But any number of drone ships *could* be part of the reserve battle force if counted against the command ship's CR... right?

A507.2 Yes, the drone bombardment ships (309.0) can be part of the battle line up to the command rating of the flagship of the reserve, but there is no support echelon in a reserve. It should be noted that if the drone bombardment ship has scout capabilities then it could be put in the free scout location as part of the reserve.

Q307.4 Am I right in thinking that a drone ship cannot be in the support echelon for pursuit as the pursuer or the pursued? Just six ships which could include, for example, 5xD7 & D6D. Not (of course) 6xD7 & 3xD6D bombarding for +12 AF.
A307.4 Yes that is correct, there is not support echelon in a pursuit battle, on either side (307.2) and (307.3).

Q302.632 If, when a player is assaulting the Tholian Dyson Sphere, and the Tholians score more damage in a single round then is required to kill all the ships in the battle force, what happens to the excess damage?

Is it carried over as plus points to the next round?

Does it disappear, since there is nothing left in the battle force to carry it over?

A302.632 This falls under the annihilation rule (302.632) and carries over to the next round as plus points for the Tholians.

Q432.44 is clear to me. However, under the Kzinti 705.2, it says "No more than one drone ship can be produced by substitution each year (432.44)." This is also clear to me. Does this mean that they can produce any number through conversion?

A432.44 Yes, for F&E2010, if you see (705.3), (703.4), and (702.4) you will see that the Klingons and the Federation are limited on conversion/substitutions of drone ships specifically. The Kzinti are only limited to one substitution (note, with Advanced Operations and other advanced modules this changes to just two a turn by any means) with no limits on conversions, so they can convert as many as their desire/economy can support. Note that most drone ships have scout functions and are limited by scout production limits.

Q506.5 In reading the Gorn Confederation Setup (706.0), the Off Map section says to see 506.5 for activation. There is no 506.5 in the new 2010 rules. Where can I find this rule?

A506.5 Please see the F&E 2010 errata page for Revision 0 rulebook at http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/2010%20Errata%20Page.pdf

Q534.223 Can a Prime Team do an E&S mission to cripple a Police ship? As there is no crippled side, the ship is killed instead of being crippled.

A534.223 Yes, this would effectively eliminate the police ship as per (532.22) since they will be removed from the map as they return to their base of operations to be repaired and returned to police duties which are not game related.

Q534.2 Can a Prime Team raid a crippled ship (which is outside of 3 hexes, so can't be captured) to destroy it?

A534.2 There is no “Destroy crippled ship” mission listed. So, no.

Q531.4 Police Carriers: Can the fighters react off (with a ship or 3 other fighters to adhere to the fighter reaction rules) the Carriers and be used in a separate hex (as Independent Squadrons). I can't see any rules stopping this - but it could allow the fighters to be transferred to another non-police carrier (kill the Carrier fighters - transfer the Independent Squadron to It. Unless you keep track of where the fighters came from!)

A531.4 (531.44) states clearly that the fighters here can only be transferred to other police carriers, so you would have to keep track of the police fighters in your example.

Q314.244 If the initial combat is successful for the raider (or no damage done by either), via Alternative Attack, can the raider attack the ship that reacted into the hex - or can it only attack ships which started the raid phase in the hex?

A314.244 The check for “any single unit of its choice in the raid target hex” (314.28) is done after the reaction of the ship into the raid target hex. So, yes, you can attack the reacting ship if you wish.

Q314.244 How do Raids, Advanced Small-Scale Combat (in Adv Ops) and Extended Small Scale Combat (in Capt Log/Errata) interact - as we appear to have found a gap in the switch from ASSC to ESSC?

Hex is raided by a DNL+PT, which has 2 x Police Ship in it. A Kzinti Tug+BP+VP reacts in (was a single ship carrier so is allowed). The defending force all has to fight the raider (or no reaction and 'don't find it') - 314.244 says 'any defending units' - the defender doesn't appear to be able to include some, but not all (unless there is a base 314.251).
R314 Updates for (314):
(314.28) will need to be adjusted when we update AO to reflect the following:

(314.281) If raid combat begins using the normal combat rules then continue to use the the normal combat rules throughout the entire raid. (This way plus/minus points are not lost.)

(314.282) If raid combat begins using the new (310.0) and the follow-on alternate attack is later deemed eligible for (310.0) then continue using (310.0).

(314.283) If raid combat begins using the new (310.0) and the follow-on alternate attack is later deemed ineligible for (310.0) then switch the normal combat rules (ignoring approach or pursuit rounds). This may be waived by the owner under (310.115).

Q600.31 This rule provides that up to six ships of an unreleased fleet may move operationally within that fleet's zone each turn. Are ships of unreleased fleets allowed to move strategically within their deployment zone? If so, is that counted within the limit of six?

A600.31 See (600.315) in the 2010 version of the rules. This provides for the strategic movement you are looking for. It is within the six ship limit specified in (600.31) and the total strategic movement allowed by (204.0) for that empire.

Q601.12: (601.12) requires that the Kzintis keep a CC and 5 other ships in the 2 provinces to "guard against the Federation." Could the Kzinti's replace the CC with a DN for the purposes of (601.12)? Obviously the DN couldn't leave those Marquis provinces until such time as the original CC would be normally released.

A601.12: The CC is the personal ship of the Marquis and as such needs to stay as he is staying in his territory. He would not leave unless the Klingons invade.

Q652.0 Free Campaign: We're contemplating starting a Free Campaign and wondering how Production is conducted. Are races allowed to construct whatever they wish following Wartime construction rules? e.g. the Gorn can build, on the first turn (F168) DN, 3xHD, 4xBD.

A652.0 The Gorn's like other members of the Alliance have to ramp up their warship production schedules.

Use Turn 1 PWC for Turn 1 of the Scenario.
Use Turn 2 PWC for Turn 2 of the Scenario.
Use Turn 3 PWC for Turn 3 of the Scenario.
Use Turn 6 PWC for Turn 4 of the Scenario.
Use Turn 7 PWC for Turn 5 of the Scenario? (Ryan is that correct?)

You can of course define your own, but in all cases may discover some sort of balance issue.
This would apply to any late arriving empire in the General War, use your best sense to make it work. ADB is not going to get mad if you don’t use the Gorn’s like they think you should. It is, after all, a free campain.

Q503.622 According to (503.622), A Neutral Zone hex is "captured" if it is occupied, or if the capturing player was the last to move a unit through it and no enemy ships are in or adjacent to it.

However, this ruling by Nick back in 2005 confuses things a bit:
________________________________________
Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 03:10 pm: Edit

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


What is the intent of the rule? Are NZ hexes captured as it is written, or does it indeed work the way Nick ruled in 2005?

A503.622 What is not clear? You move through neutral zone hex A, there are no adjacent enemy ships. You claim the hex. When it comes around to your economic phase you check the hex to see if any enemy ships have moved adjacent since you have claimed the hex or the previous economic phase. If there are not any you get 0.2 EPs for that hex.

Q509.1 Under F&E 2010 have Theater Transports been changed in their ability to carry PDUs? Under (509.1-K1) Groups of theater transports can perform this mission (509.22). (Emphasis added). This rule is reiterated under (509.22). (509.23) confirms explicitly that where groups of TTs are used, that means 3*TTs are needed. Thus, it appears that delivering one PDU takes 3*TTs under F&E 2010.

However, (539.72) of Strategic Operations states that a single TT can carry and deploy one PDU.

It appears that the F&E 2010 rules changed how theater transports can move and deploy PDUs, particularly moving one PDU now takes 3xTT vice 1xTT.

A509.1 Yes, indeed, the role of Theater Transports has changed to the consolidated rulings listed here. Some missions have changed in the requirements of what can and cannot be done. These will be superseding all previous products for all transport uses.

Q516.32 Under (516.32) The Klingon D5G acts as a LTT for certain missions as modified by (509.24) and other relevant rules and previous Questions and Answers by FEAR. The Klingon DWG (a heavy war cruiser variant of the D5G) also has the "t" in the special factors place marking it as a Tug.

My questions are simple:

1. Is the DWG limited to the same missions and restrictions as the D5G under (516.32) or does it have a the ability to do more because it's on a larger hull?

2. Does the DWG count against the LTT limit as well as the commando limit similar to the D5G?

A516.32 The DWG is limited to the same missions and restrictions as the D5G under (516.32). This is due to the notes under the SIT and evaluation of the SSD from SFB. There is very little change between the D5G and DWG except for a little larger rear hull area for more phasers, transporters, batteries, and a larger Auxiliary control suite. This extra mass is compensated for by the center warp engine. It does count against both limits for LTTs (516.1) and the command ship limits (521.23).

Q318.42 This is concerning Flagship Escort groups and X-ships. Hypothetical example: I have a Kzinti DNH I want to escort. The FEG rule says I can have 2 escorts, one of which must be size-4.

The ad-hoc rules say no BCH/DN escorts, and the SITS lists the X-cruisers as base hull type BC (Cruiser hull).

I realize that the X-ship loses 2 compot for the privilege, and loses its mauler special attack capability.

May I use an X-cruiser (BCX/CCX) as the large escort, and use a DW as the small one?

A318.42 References for the escorts allowed in a FEG are (515.33-.34), (318.421-.429) and are very specific in what can and cannot be used. A Kzinti BC by the SIT and the R section of SFB is listed as a Heavy Cruiser. The BCX and CCX are variants of this base hull and as such are allowed with the other limits imposed by the above rules.

Q542.27 High Risk Survey: If a 6 is rolled (Monster found) - does the survey ship miss the next opportunity to make any form of survey roll?

A542.27 The rule specifically states that the ship encountering the monster loses one turn of surveying. Its survey result for this turn was the monster. It spends a retrograde phase getting back to a repair facility in a previously surveyed area and is repaired on the next turn and then moves operationally to the survey area and then is eligible for survey on the next turn after that. So, if you roll a six on High Risk Survey you lose any survey opportunity for that turn and the next.

Q518.2 Deployment in combat question. SWACs are limited in the number that can be deployed by carriers, bases, and other units in a single combat round. My question is: are these cumulative, meaning a CVA with 2 SWACs defending a Starbase that also has 2 SWACs deploy all 4 in a combat round?

A518.2 The only limit is based on the unit the SWAC is based on. So, if you had in a battle force, in a ridiculous example, 5 Defense Brigades, 2xCVA groups, 2xStarbases, and a BCV group you could have a potential 14 SWACS deployed at once. Not that you would be able to find jobs for all 14, but you could have that many available.

Q540.253 The Romulans flipped the planet 3415 on turn 2. Does it produce 3eps on turn 3 since the Romulans are at a war-time economy? Can I save those eps or do I have to spend them each turn?

A540.253 The planet is its own partial supply grid unattached to the owning player until the turn after the player goes to war. The EPs may be spent there on defenses or other infrastructure for that planet only.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 02:28 pm: Edit

QUESTIONS DOWNLOADED TO THIS POINT
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 02:39 pm: Edit

FEAR

The following two rulings, both from your tenure, appear to be inconsistant.
________________________________________
Quote:
Q302.632 If, when a player is assaulting the Tholian Dyson Sphere, and the Tholians score more damage in a single round then is required to kill all the ships in the battle force, what happens to the excess damage?

Is it carried over as plus points to the next round?

Does it disappear, since there is nothing left in the battle force to carry it over?

A302.632 This falls under the annihilation rule (302.632) and carries over to the next round as plus points for the Tholians.
________________________________________

________________________________________
Quote:
Q: In a capital assault, the attackers strike a minor planet. The defenders do not send forces to defend this planet. As a result, the 37 damage points are nine more than is required to destroy both PDUs, all 12 fighter factors, and devastate the planet. Are these extra points recorded as plus points? What do they represent, since there is nothing to “retreat” from the planet (but there are other ships in “the hex” which were not in the battle).
A: Rule (308.25) covers this rather clearly. If everything there was destroyed, then nothing carries over. Note that in general, plus and minus points at the various planets of a capital battle (308.24) do get merged (maximum of seven plus points per system) for pursuit purposes, but not “excess” points.

________________________________________


Please advise.
By Kevin Sanders (Boogaboo) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Federation and Empire 2010 questions:
Hi all,
Relearning F&E 2010 and have some question, correction and clarifications please. Note some are pretty basic noob questions sorry. Thanks in advance for the help and support. Have a massive game (Grand Campaign) starting in May and want to get my act together for it.

1. When you look at the Kzinti order of battle for the "test" scenario The Squall, it uses a listing for a SC (Scout?). Yet the counter mix for Kzinti does not have a scout. I assumed that it mean the Frigate sized scout SF correct?

2. In the Squall, the Kzinti fleet at 1304 get to move as a "Reserve" fleet yet the set-up does not say that it is one. So, I assumed that the Kzinti reserve counter was being used on the fleet at 1304, correct?

3. On the SITs under Base Hull the (#) represent general hull size correct? I.e. DNs are a (2).

4. On the SITs under Build Cost or Substitution, It seems that substitution data is first then a build cost correct? I.e. Lyran BC state "Schedule: 10"

5. Production Rates (431.11) states that you may produce all or any of the scheduled ships at specified costs. Question: Is building anything OFF schedule considered "Overbuilding (431.3)" and therefore subject to a cost of double? Is this true of substitution builds or conversions as well?

6. Pinning Exception (203.55) Does the compare command rating only happen if the hex contains enough enemy forces to pin the entire fleet? Or do you always do this step when pinned and wanting to move? Also, this step seems like it is in addition to any normal pinning calculations correct?

7. When following any "Historical" scenario does one follow the attack dates as well or can these be altered by play action/decisions? For example Scenario 601 says that the Lyrans attack Kzinti on turn 1 and Klingons attack Kzinti turn 2. Could the Kling on attack the Feds or Kzinti say on turn 1?

8. In Combat Procedure (Step 1 - Withdrawal Before Combat Battle 302.13 there are two option offered for the defender to choose from. Are these two chose solely up to the defender or do you have to pick one over the other in certain circumstances? For example, in option 2 defender can withdraw any number as long as they leave equal number to the enemy ship behind. But if option 1, withdraw 1/2 allows for a better result for the defender, can I just select that option, thereby potentially NOT leaving an equal number of ships to the enemy force behind?

9. Can I get a better explanation of the effect of a "Group" on command ratings/fleet slots? Say I have a DN w/ command rating 10. And I have a Hvy carrier grp formed and in this battle group, what is the impact? How many fleet slots have I got left for other ships?

10. If an attacker "retreats" after a round of combat can a Defender use "Pursuit" as in 307.0?

11. Can you explain how you "fight three approach battles" in terms of 308.32 Successive attack. Is this 3 within the same battle hex? I.e. one after another over 3 turns? Or is it just fight any three approach battles this turn? Or something all together different?

12. Does a nation AT WAR have the opportunity to build it PWC builds as well as the scheduled builds at base cost?

This is what I have so far. On read 2 of the rules an solo playing a scenario or two. So, I may have a few more questions. I apologize if these have been asked before. But sifting through the massive amounts of achieved material was a bad idea (I started).
Thanks again,

Kevin
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Matthew Smith:
Q302.632 The following two rulings, both from your tenure, appear to be inconsistent.
________________________________________
Quote:
Q302.632 If, when a player is assaulting the Tholian Dyson Sphere, and the Tholians score more damage in a single round then is required to kill all the ships in the battle force, what happens to the excess damage?

Is it carried over as plus points to the next round?

Does it disappear, since there is nothing left in the battle force to carry it over?

A302.632 This falls under the annihilation rule (302.632) and carries over to the next round as plus points for the Tholians.
________________________________________

________________________________________
Quote:
Q: In a capital assault, the attackers strike a minor planet. The defenders do not send forces to defend this planet. As a result, the 37 damage points are nine more than is required to destroy both PDUs, all 12 fighter factors, and devastate the planet. Are these extra points recorded as plus points? What do they represent, since there is nothing to “retreat” from the planet (but there are other ships in “the hex” which were not in the battle).
A: Rule (308.25) covers this rather clearly. If everything there was destroyed, then nothing carries over. Note that in general, plus and minus points at the various planets of a capital battle (308.24) do get merged (maximum of seven plus points per system) for pursuit purposes, but not “excess” points.

________________________________________


Please advise.

A302.632 They are not. The first answer is for a attack on a single system which will result in more rounds of combat at that system by the attacker who has suffered severe losses and will suffer more if he comes back. The second answer is the defender has suffered enough losses to kill everything at one planet at a multiple system battle hex and will probably not come back to this system if he is smart. Note that the points from the overkill here do transfer to the pursuit battle. If we allowed the defender to keep attacking this one planet he could build up enough minus points to keep anything from being affected in the pursuit round. The idea is once a planet is devastated and no other ships remain in the static force for that planet there is no reason to revisit it. Hope this is clear.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Can everyone tell that my data servers are down here at work and they do not mind me working on other things as long as I look busy?
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 04:08 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Note that the points from the overkill here do transfer to the pursuit battle. If we allowed the defender to keep attacking this one planet he could build up enough minus points to keep anything from being affected in the pursuit round. The idea is once a planet is devastated and no other ships remain in the static force for that planet there is no reason to revisit it. Hope this is clear.
________________________________________


Actually, it's not clear. And I don't mean to be dense, so here's the issue:
________________________________________
Quote:
If everything there was destroyed, then nothing carries over.
________________________________________


This "makes sense." (And incidently, was part of the CL37 ruling.) It doesn't matter how much firepower you brought to the battle if you killed everything there. The fact that you scored more damage than what was required to kill everything there shouldn't have ANY effect on items not in the battle.

In the case where not everything is destroyed, a plus point may represent shield damage, or some level of internal damage, but not crippling damage. But it makes no sense when everything is vaporized.

The ruling from CL37 seemed to reinforce this point of view. Furthermore, the written rule that basically says "you can't go to an empty system just to rack up plus points" also seems to reinforce this viewpoint.

So, now the ruling provided today:
________________________________________
Quote:
This falls under the annihilation rule (302.632) and carries over to the next round as plus points for the Tholians.
________________________________________


In effect, you're saying that the Tholians did so much damage that they've either made thier defenses stronger some how, or affected ships not yet in the battle in some negative way. How else could battle round x+1 be influenced by what happened in battle round x?

I guess what I'm asking for is the "why" do they accumulate? I'm obviously not seeing the underlying game mechanic you are seeing. Here's my understanding of the "why" behind plus and minus points:

Minus point: The opposing side only scored 10 damage, but you resolved 12. A ship you're counting as crippled isn't really quite crippled, and takes a little more damage next round before it's "really" crippled. Hence, you subtract from the damage scored against you next round.

Plus point: The opposing side did 12 damage, but you only resolved 10. A ship isn't quite crippled, and did receive some minor damage, but not enough to degrade compot. Next round you account for this damage by scoring it as well as whatever the opposing player rolled.

----------------------

With that understanding of what "plus" and "minus" points really mean, I can't fathom your ruling. Perhaps it would make more sense if you could explain your view of what plus and minus points represent, and that way I'd be able to follow the logic better and I might be able to see why the two rulings aren't in conflict.
By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 04:28 pm: Edit

I asked this a while ago, but don't see an answer.
I have another newbie question. I have a Sector map for A,B,and D. Has sector C been published and where? Are there any other sector maps I am missing?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 04:41 pm: Edit

Shawn, it is in my current list of questions I am working on. Others may comment on this, but I don't know if there was a specific Sector C map published, but on the LSM those boundaries are deliniated.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Matthew:

It is not plus vs. minus points. It is the situation. One is a multi system battle hex the other is a single system battle hex.

The Klingons will be taking their lumps against the Tholians and giving them a way to just do 10 points of damage to direct on something with a minimal force that will be blown away and leave 10 or more points of unresolved damage in a single system combat is something that will break the game and needs to be accounted for.

Remember (302.63) is a general rule while (511.551) is specific for a multi-system battle hex keeping the attacker from attacking there again, hence keeping any "plus" points from being used at that planet until the pursuit phase of combat.

I should have mentioned (511.551) earlier as this may have eliminated your confusion. I apologize.
By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 05:21 pm: Edit

Shawn-
Check out the "F&E by Email" topic. There is a link there to download the the VASSAL game engine as well as the F&E GW scenario (the Wind). The guys working on this module did a good job and the map has the Sectors nicely defined.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Request for clarification and reconsideration:
________________________________________
Quote:
Q503.622 According to (503.622), A Neutral Zone hex is "captured" if it is occupied, or if the capturing player was the last to move a unit through it and no enemy ships are in or adjacent to it.

However, this ruling by Nick back in 2005 confuses things a bit:
________________________________________
Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 03:10 pm: Edit

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


What is the intent of the rule? Are NZ hexes captured as it is written, or does it indeed work the way Nick ruled in 2005?

A503.622 What is not clear? You move through neutral zone hex A, there are no adjacent enemy ships. You claim the hex. When it comes around to your economic phase you check the hex to see if any enemy ships have moved adjacent since you have claimed the hex or the previous economic phase. If there are not any you get 0.2 EPs for that hex.
________________________________________


The lack of clarity comes from, IMHO, other players reading too much into the rule. Currently, there are two issues in dispute. The first issue is that an enemy moving through my NZ hex removes my claim to it, even if I have an adjacent ship. I say that this idea is not supported by the rule. The second issue is that the mere existence of an enemy ship next to the NZ hex denies me the 0.2 EPs (as opposed to applying normal supply rules). I say this idea is also not supported by the rule.

Here's my perspective.

What 503.622 tells me is that I capture a NZ hex if A or B. A is if I occupy the NZ hex. B is if I was the last to move through through the NZ hex *and* no enemy ships are in or adjacent the NZ hex. If either condition A or condition B is satisifed, I capture the NZ hex. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

In other words, 503.622 *ONLY* tells you whether the NZ hex has been captured. Nothing else. That means that normal supply rules would dictate whether I derive income from the captured NZ hex; and the mere proximity of an enemy ship is irrelevant (i.e., unless the enemy ship adjacent the NZ hex disrupted my supply to that hex, I would draw income from the captured NZ hex).

Additionally, there is a dispute that 503.622 can be read in such a way as to *remove* my claim to the NZ hex. The assertion is that an enemy that moves *through* my previously captured NZ hex removes my claim to it, unless I have an occupying ship - even if I have an adjacent ship.

I respectfully dispute this assertion because I think that 503.622 is actually quite clear and there's been a bunch of "reading into it" that's not supported by the clear meaning of rule itself. There's no provision to "eliminate" my claim - just replace my claim with yours.


So, I'll make this easy on you. I am requesting the following ruling. If you agree with my reasoning, then you could either use this draft ruling, or modify it as you see fit. Or just say I'm bogus and say whatever you want. However, at least the *situation* will be clarified.

Thanks for the reconsideration.


Proposed ruling to issue on 503.622
A503.622: This rule tells you how to capture a NZ hex. That's it: nothing more, nothing less. Rule 503.622 implies nothing regarding eliminating the prior owner's claim, except by replacing his claim. Rule 503.622 implies nothing regarding denying your opponent enjoyment of income from the captured NZ hex, though of course you may either replace his claim with yours or possibly block your opponents supply to the NZ hex under the normal rules (which then may or may not be part of a valid partial supply grid).

In other words, once you own a NZ hex, normal supply rules determine whether you draw income from the NZ hex you have previously captured. Additionally, ownership of a previously captured NZ hex does not change merely because an enemy moves through it. You cannot "eliminate" a player's claim to a NZ hex, you can only replace his claim with yours using the capture rules defined in 503.622.
By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Friday, April 30, 2010 - 12:39 am: Edit

Good to have ya back Mike. Hope the tech guys at work start the weekend early! :D
By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Friday, April 30, 2010 - 12:42 am: Edit

Q: Are there any old Reports from the Front archives that could be reposted for those interested in the here-and-now? Even if they were played w/ old rule sets, it would be very cool to read! I've read some references to some epic campaigns.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Friday, April 30, 2010 - 05:08 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
The Klingons will be taking their lumps against the Tholians and giving them a way to just do 10 points of damage to direct on something with a minimal force that will be blown away and leave 10 or more points of unresolved damage in a single system combat is something that will break the game and needs to be accounted for.
________________________________________


So, let me get this straight: You're saying that the Klingons sending a C8, D7 and a bunch of F5 to fight the Tholians and making a F5 flag leading another 4 F5 each round just to allow the force to be totally vaporized (thereby wasting Tholian firepower) is something the Tholians need to be protected from?

Sign me up to play against that Klingon.

Meanwhile, over at Hydrax, the following situation presents:

The Coalition keeps attacking my minor planets before the major assault on the capital planet itself. Every line I put up at the minors, the Klingons go low BIR then direct against the biggest thing they can. The goal being to totally destroy my fleet, even if that means the capital planet assault itself will be delayed a turn.

I'd rather not have my fleet vaporized, and believe the only way I can adequately protect my capital planet is to preserve all forces for that fight. I do so. But then the Klingon racks up the maximum allotment of plus points against me, and the maximum amount of minus points for him at the outlying systems so that even if I drive the Klingon player off, that pursuit gets totally useless. Just agreeing to the fight gets me committed to simultaneously buring through his minus points AND taking extra damage with the plus points he was able to score at the undefended minors.

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

Please consider this a request to bump up to FEDS. Thank you.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, April 30, 2010 - 05:46 am: Edit

FEAR - I beleive your answer on Neutral Zones unfortunately does not resolve this query, and Ted has sort of appealed it anyway.

For simplicity, clarity and to align Neutral Zones with home provinces, might I suggest the following -

503.622 'Who ever moves through a Neutral Zone last owns it and may claim thje 0.2 Ep's, if it is connected to a (Full or partial) supply grid.'

The reason for this suggestion is -

430.21 confirms for home provinces that if the original owner has nothing in the province, and your enemy does. Your enemy ownz the province.

If the enemy forces leave the province, the province becomes disrupted.

Enemy or Friendly forces adjacent to the province have no effect on ownership - so why should Neutral zones be different (or harder to capture than home provinces)?

It also doesn't matter how those forces moves through the hex, as if an ememy force retreated into a home province, it would capture or disrupt the province.

Simple solution I think.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 02:44 pm: Edit

May - June 2010 Archive

By James Wood (Jwood314) on Saturday, May 01, 2010 - 06:16 am: Edit

I did some searching concerning Commercial Convoys and the following question, but did not see a definite answer.

1) Can the Lyrans build a SB in the Klingon Capitol for super fast Commercial Convoy shipping?

and

2) Does it take 12 or 6 free fighter factors to pay for the 12 discounted fighter factors on an LAV?

Thanks
James
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, May 01, 2010 - 08:43 am: Edit

On item 1, there was a ruling in CL30 that the destination starbases must each be in the original territory of the receiving empire.
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Saturday, May 01, 2010 - 12:12 pm: Edit

443.53 also states that the start and end starbases must be more than 3 hexes apart.
By Andrew Bruno (Admeeral) on Tuesday, May 04, 2010 - 11:16 am: Edit

Q: How is a "Sector of Main Effort" defined?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, May 04, 2010 - 12:08 pm: Edit

FEAR, Question regarding Fighting Retreat:

Q307.772: This rule requires BIR 10 for the non-retreating force and BIR 0 for the retreating force with "no modifications possible." In a particular battle, my opponent (non-retreating force at BIR 10) rolls a 1 during combat. I have forced an EW shift of 1 against him. Opponent argues damage is *not* shifted down due to EW since applying the -1 would "effectively" result in the BIR going down to 9 - which 307.772 is argued not to allow. I say that the BIR is not downshifted at all - just the damage he does is reduced because of the EW shift. (c.f. 308.62 for EW shifts being characterized as determined by BIR reductions, which may support opponent's position, but I still think scouts are just reducing the damage vice BIR).
By Andrew Bruno (Admeeral) on Tuesday, May 04, 2010 - 02:33 pm: Edit

Q: (512.3X)When attacking into web, if a tug in the attacking battleforce is assigned to retrieve cripples may it still operate full EW from it's pods? I don't believe that AF from BP/DB nor ftrs from CV pods may contribute, but it could still pull ships out of the web. Is this correct?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 11:40 am: Edit

FEAR,

Appeal Request on the following:
________________________________________
Quote:
Q509.1 Under F&E 2010 have Theater Transports been changed in their ability to carry PDUs? Under (509.1-K1) Groups of theater transports can perform this mission (509.22). (Emphasis added). This rule is reiterated under (509.22). (509.23) confirms explicitly that where groups of TTs are used, that means 3*TTs are needed. Thus, it appears that delivering one PDU takes 3*TTs under F&E 2010.

However, (539.72) of Strategic Operations states that a single TT can carry and deploy one PDU.

It appears that the F&E 2010 rules changed how theater transports can move and deploy PDUs, particularly moving one PDU now takes 3xTT vice 1xTT.

A509.1 Yes, indeed, the role of Theater Transports has changed to the consolidated rulings listed here. Some missions have changed in the requirements of what can and cannot be done. These will be superseding all previous products for all transport uses.
________________________________________


(509.23) is generic in that it applies to several missions that require a long period of time to complete and an even longer period of time if less than an optimal number of transports.

(539.72) is specific to theater transports in saying that one threater transport can carry (and deploy) one PDU or base module.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 01:17 pm: Edit

Thomas,

Odds are that the rule will be re-written and that it will be changed, so this is probably a non-issue.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 01:56 pm: Edit

I might be being very thick, so I'll also post this in the Discussion Topic.

Raids (AO) - 314.293 confirms that normal raids into inactive fleet area does NOT either activate the fleet, or cause political events.

Advanced Raids (PO) - 320.334 confirms that Advanced Raids (also called Special Raids in the paragraph) does enter the target hex and DOES activate fleets or violate neutrality (except Rom pre-war raids).

These seem to contradict either other, as a normal raid by a Coalition ship on say the BATS in 1803 on turns 2 through to 7, has no consequences, whereas a Drone or Fighter Raid does (limited war with Feds and Marquis fleet/area released).

Question is therefore - is this an intended difference?

Thanks

(Edited to make it 1803 instead of 1805 as Dukes deployment area changed)
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Paul,

You are missing something in 314.28:
"This type of attack cannot be conducted in the area of an inactive fleet."

In order to attack the BATS with a normal raid, you'd have to give up disrupting the province to use the rule 314.28, and by that rule it is specifically not allowed to target such a unit (since it is part of an unreleased fleet area). A Drone or Fighter raid cannot disrupt a province, they can only target a unit, and hense would also be disallowed by 314.28.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 03:36 pm: Edit

Thanks Robert

FEAR - Please ignore this question

(By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 01:56 pm: Edit )
By Shayne Demeria (Nighthawk) on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - 11:25 am: Edit

FEG's, do they take up space in the command ratings ?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - 11:28 am: Edit

A question based on the discussion in the Tac Notes topic:

Let's say I have a reserve fleet in the Kzinti off-map area. This reserve consists of a DN, 3xCC, 3xBC, CL, 2xSAV and a SF. The Coalition are attacking hexes 1001 and 0902. Hex 1001 contains a planet with 2 PDUs for the Kzinti and 5 Coalition ships, one of which is CR 10. The Kzinti decide to send their off-map reserve to hex 0902. What happens next?

Either the reserve fleet is forced to move through 1001 due to the presence of the two SAVs, or the reserve fleet must leave behind the two SAVs and go around 1001 to arrive at 0902. For this example there are no other Coalition units blocking the reserve fleet's path. If the reserve goes through 1001, it must leave behind up to 5 ships. If it goes around 1001, it only has to leave the 2xSAVs in the off-map area.

This question could also be asked if there was a fast ship in the reserve fleet. So in that case we can change the conposition of the reserve fleet to be:
DN, 3xCC, 3xBC, CL, 2xBF

Same question, except assume the target hex is six hexes away and every six hex movement path contains 3 Coalition ships. But there is one seven hex path that contains no Coalition ships or units. Can only the BFs make it to the target hex?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Just a rider to Robert's.

It seems if one MUST leave behind the Speed 3 units in his first example in order to avoid a hex with enemy units, then you MUST leave behind the speed 6 units in the second example under the same logic.

For the example with F ships, one could just not include the F-ships as part of the reserving force in Robert's example since your never required to bring all the units in the reserve. So perhaps its better to say that each 6 length path has enough enemy ships that if you left the BF's behind you would be forced to drop too many ships to reserve at all. So then travelling a 6 hex path you absolutely NEED the BF's to do it at all. So then the question becomes. Since all the 6 hex path's require me to drop off ships but the 7 hex paths do not. Am I forced to ONLY reserve the 2xBF's?

My thought is no you are not in either case. My position is that when your getting ready to do reserve movement you examine a reserve stack.. decide which units are going to move out.. at this point when you decide which things are moving you now know what the speed of the reserve is (7,6 or 3). Then you look at possible destination hexes based upon the size and speed of your reserve. Your hand is not forced to consider all possible reserve force compositions from the available reserve to find the one that drops the least amount of ships. Said more simply.

1. Examine your reserve stack and pick the units you want to use. (This determines size and speed of reserve)
2. With these chosen units pick a legal reserve hex
3. Follow the rules on pathing to reach this hex

Otherwise you would need something that in essence says look at every possible combination of reserve forces that could legally make it to a given reserve eligible hex and pick from amongst the ones that end up leaving the least number of ships.

Only happens of course when units of different speeds are co-mingled in a reserve.. but that is fairly common!
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Note, I am the creator of the tactic note and I concur with Michaels excellent analysis of the situation.

(In other words -

You designate what actually moves as a reserve fleet - and then decide on the route to the target hex, which encounters the least pinning.)
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Duplicate post
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - 03:38 pm: Edit

I would believe that it is the flagship of the reserve that would decide the "speed" of the reserve. Because of this I believe arguing that a single fast ship could force a player to leave behind the rest of the reserve is bogus, unless the fast ship is the flagship of the reserve. I also believe that the same should work for the auxes. If you have an aux as your flagship, then the max speed of the reserve is three period. When a reserve is designated, it is fully designated including what ship is the flagship, free scout, battlegroup and CV groups.

But all of this is supposition that is outside the scope of the rules as far as I can tell.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 08:29 am: Edit

Actually Robert that is not entirely correct. When you create the reserve you do so by creating a force within CR limits of a flagship and with BG and Free scouts (no ADM however). But there is NOT a requirement that the Flagship you used to establish the reserve be the flagship of the force that eventually uses Reserve movement, in fact whatever reserves doesn't HAVE a flagship while its moving and neither does it need one.

You literally look at the force at the moment your considering reserving, and move one, some, or all of them. They move together as a stack so by definition their speed is equal to the lowest constituent members speed.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Michael, I would refer you to rule 507.13 (2010 Edition):

"Reserve fleets must be designated entirely (by
specific ships) at the end of the Player Turn. A player cannot simply place a reserve marker on a stack of ships and decide which of those ships are in the reserve fleet at some future time."

"By specific ships" to me means just that. I need to have a flagship that can control the fleet, I need to select which ship is using the free scout position, and so on. Now if you, at a later time decide to only move a portion of that fleet, you can at that point pick a new flagship, but before that point you must select it, otherwise the reserve would not be legal.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Robert

I believe that rule is more to ensure that it is clear which ships are in the reserve.

Example - If you have 30 ships and place a reserve marker on it - you need to 'designate' which ships are in the reserve, and which ships are not in the reserve.

i.e. You can't pick at the reserve movement stage, which ships you now want to be in the reserve!

Hope this helps!
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 06:24 pm: Edit

Paul,

But that's exactly what happens if there is not a defined flagship and so on. If you have a stack of ships that is one DN, one scout and 10 other ships and you stick a reserve counter on it but only send 5 of those ships to a battle (not including the DN or the scout), how is that any different than putting a reserve counter on a stack of 30 ships that includes exactly one DN and one scout, but only sending the same 5 ships? You're doing the same thing in both examples, just on a smaller scale in the first one.
By Matthew Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Actually, in the 1st case that's completely legal.

In any fleet, the highest CR ship is the flagship, and if there are two equal, either one could be the flagship. And if there's also a scout, it's obviously going to be the free scout.

i.e., if I was playing somebody by e-mail, and they had a 12 ship force like you describe, and they put a RESV marker on top, I'd have absolutely zero problem with that, and wouldn't even think to ask them "ok, which one is your flagship?"
By Shayne Demeria (Nighthawk) on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 09:03 pm: Edit

Question on the CVBG, Can I take a CVA, and put the DVL in the Battle group ?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 11:14 pm: Edit

I'm going to move this discussion over to General, since it really doesn't belong here at this point. FEAR, sorry for cluttering up your topic.
By Shayne Demeria (Nighthawk) on Saturday, May 15, 2010 - 09:47 pm: Edit

I remember seeing an electronic version of the economics form. Any Idea where i can find it ?
By James Wood (Jwood314) on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 03:10 am: Edit

I built my in Calc, which is essentially Excel. Does not take too long to do, worth the time.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Q541.34(D). This rule allows an engineer to act as an SAF. It says "if the engineer survives the attack it is not destroyed but remains on the map." Rule 520.41 states that SAFs cannot be destroyed by directed damage when deployed against a base or PDU, but can only be disrupted. Thus, it seems reasonable to argue that the only way to actually destroy a COE when it is used as an SAF is for the defender to retain posession of the hex and then destroy any crippled (disrupted) COE upon retreat. In other words, per 520.41, a COE deployed against a valid SAF target can only be "disrupted" and can't actually be killed by directed damage when so deployed. The question is, is this assessment correct?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 06:16 pm: Edit

Q425.2. This rule allows a player to reduce the cost of performing a conversion by up to 1 point if you repair the converted unit at the same time. Rule 433.19 of F&E 2010 allows a starbase to perform multiple conversions, so long as the total cost does not exceed 3. Note that 425.2 seems to be rationalized by the idea that you have already opened up the ship to repair and replace systems; thus making conversions "easier" and less expensive. I say that for this reason, I can perform a number of conversions under 433.19 equal to the reduced cost of conversions under 425.2. Opponent says I can't. Who is right?

Example: The Lyrans have 3 crippled DDs at a starbase. The Lyrans repair all three DDs and desire to convert them to DDGs. Normally a DD->DDG conversion is 2 EPs; but under 425.2 the cost is only 1 EP. I say that I can make 3 "1 point" conversions at the SB under 425.2 and 433.19. Opponent says I can only make ONE such conversion because, while the cost is only 1 EP, in effect I'm still doing a "2 point conversion" (DD to DDG is nominally a 2 point conversion, even if the cost is reduced) and I can only have 3 conversion points at the SB. I say no way, I can convert all 3 since each is effectively now a 1 point conversion (it's both easier and cheaper to convert during repair after all). Who is right?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 10:12 am: Edit

(424.31) states that ships can be converted using the normal capacity and costs, with the exception that a variant could be converted to the base hull type at no cost. In the case of multiple hull types, e.g. Klingon F5, F5W, etc, could a F5x be converted to an F5Wx? The lower case x indicates a valid variant such as the F5E to an F5WE.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Need a little help on this......Im loss on the Lyran JGP..... (1) If I build a HDW-V for the JGP-V what is the true cost for this V-Module. (2)How do I build the JGP-V with only 3 free fighter for Fall Y168 which this Module has 2 spare fighters space....Do I pay for 4 Epts for the 2 spare fighters or 2 Ept for the 2 spare fighters
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 03:49 pm: Edit

IIRC, you pay the full 10 EPs for the COG to make the JGP a JGP-V. The extra two fighters are expensive FCRs for the COG.

However, when the HDW comes out the COG can go to the HDW and make it a HDW-V.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 04:03 pm: Edit

OK tnat what I was thinking on the cost.......BUT now ON the y168F of the Lyran...When the Lryan are at war ...They only have 3 free fighters to start the turn (Y168F)
....The JGP-V have 3 fighters to used in 1 combat round...plus has 2 spare that can be used bewteen rounds,,That is a total of 5 fighters that the unit has.....How Im trying to find out is if the Lyran only has 3 free fighters to play with no cost.....the extra 2 spare fighters on the JGP-V are free or the 10 you get the JGP-V is to low....Do you not to paid for more fighters after you run out of free fighters
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 04:38 pm: Edit

plus rule (525.23V) The cost can be lower than the 10 Ept say in the SIT and you Craiq....right or wrong
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Q701.0 (Regular Ships). This rule provides that an empire "can produce one tug pods per turn up to the overall limits, except Romulans (431.22). See SITs for year that each pod type is available. Klingon, Kzintis and Lyran (K types) can produce one “pair” of pods for those that come in pairs." (Emphasis supplied.) The question is this, may dissimilar pairs of pods that otherwise are allowable in pairs on a tug be produced on a single turn? For example, on a prior turn the Lyrans lost a tug operating a KTP and a KBP. On the subsequent turn may the Lyrans build one KBP and one KTP as one "pair" of pods that "come in pairs" as replacements? Assume the Lyrans do not want to build any other pod that turn.

Opponent says I can't, that I must build one KBP on one turn and one KTP on the next. I say I can as they are a "pair" of pods that "come in pairs." Ruling, please.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 05:01 pm: Edit

what does this rule have on IF I can build a JGP-V on Y168F with only 3 free fighters on that turn....what would the cost be for that ..2Ept or 4 Ept added to the 10 Ept........
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 05:12 pm: Edit

sorry try to delete part of last post ......the part (what does this rule have on )....again sorry
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Q701.0 (Regular Ships). This rule provides that an empire "can produce one tug pods per turn up to the overall limits, except Romulans (431.22). See SITs for year that each pod type is available. Klingon, Kzintis and Lyran (K types) can produce one “pair” of pods for those that come in pairs." (Emphasis supplied.) The question is this, may dissimilar pairs of pods that otherwise are allowable in pairs on a tug be produced on a single turn? For example, on a prior turn the Lyrans lost a tug operating a KTP and a KBP. On the subsequent turn may the Lyrans build one KBP and one KTP as one "pair" of pods that "come in pairs" as replacements? Assume the Lyrans do not want to build any other pod that turn.

Opponent says I can't, that I must build one KBP on one turn and one KTP on the next. I say I can as they are a "pair" of pods that "come in pairs." Ruling, please.

R701.0 (Regular Ships) This is not very clear when single pod losses are concerned. A pair of pods implies that you must produce two of the same kind, but if you have lost only one you can only produce one otherwise you exceed your limit on the numbers you are allowed to have. Hence, you would have to lose two of the same kind before you can replace them, following this line of logic. That line of logic just doesn’t work in game terms!

(509.31) states “Pods destroyed in combat can be replaced up to the established limits.” This allows the rebuilding of lost pods.

If we allow two pods of different types to be produced it allows a player to replace dissimilar pods that were lost previously. This also allows a player to produce, up to his race’s limits, dissimilar pods. This can only happen with the Klingon, Kzinti, and Lyrans as they are the only ones to have pairs of pods to go around.

The ruling is thus: One of the following races may replace losses of pods that are dissimilar as a pair in a following turn per (701.0) Regular ships and (509.31).
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 05:37 pm: Edit

Mike, thanks for the jiffy ruling!
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 06:47 pm: Edit

MHO - (525.23V) is very clear on the cost, it's 10 EP (minus 2 for each free fighter spent), so the Lyrans can buy their COG for the JGP for 4 EP [10-(2x3)=4].
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 07:04 pm: Edit

That again I was thinking that why...I got HALF of what Im looking for.....what about the 2 spare fighters that are stored on the COS....are they the same cost as a FCR when you buy the COS would that be 2Ept off the 4Ept as we at 2Ept
That is the part it dont seem right......
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 07:06 pm: Edit

OR is the SIT is wrong .......0(3)[2]/None....the [2] is stored fighters
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 07:09 pm: Edit

Ted, I was at work and waiting on a file transfer to take place and figured I could work it out pretty quickly.

As for the rest I am nearly done with it, but have not been rushed with SVC having enough for CL41. You folks have created plenty for several CLs!
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Guys on the JGP-CoG this has been ruled on before I am almost positive. Mike C. might very well repeat the ruling but this is how it goes with my poor memory.

The JGP-CoG costs 10. It is just a CoG like one would use on an HDW later but while operating on the JGP it has factors of 3[2]. Once its on an HDW chassis it works just as a CoG does and makes an HDW a 6 factor CV the HDW-CoG (or HDWV).

In essence if you don't like paying the full 10 for 3[2] on the JGP then don't operate the JGP in that mode. I personally love it in G mode or in CoG mode once I have some CV's to play with.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 08:51 pm: Edit

But in a way it both a carrier and a FCR builded on a a COG.....rule (525.23V) does clear say (minus 2 for each free fighter spent), [10-(2x3)=4], that all clear I understand, but what get me is the [2].
Rule (103.3)) Factors on the Counters
[#] = A number in square brackets is the number of spare fighter factors on a carrier resupply ship.
And when you build a FCR the fighters cost a 1 Ept per fighter.
So what is the cost for the spare fighter [2]
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Michael it not the issue if I wish to pay 10 or not ...Im tring to find out the COST of the [2] cost.Is it 4 Ept or 2Ept, that is what Im tring to find out...A ruling on this is what Im looking for ....
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 10:00 pm: Edit

JGP-V = 7(3)[2]
Cost = 7+2+6+2 = 17
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Then rule (525.23V) is wrong and The SIT is wrong too
It stated in the rule (525.23V) does clear say (minus 2 for each free fighter spent)[If it a HDW-COS]
rule (525.243) Carrier (V) mission special rule. JGPs operating inthe carrier mode use a standard HDW-COS but have fewer fighters than HDWs ( threee fighter factors from the COS; thereis no hybird fighter on a JGP ; the "missing" fighter factors are simply ignored until needed as replacement; there is no redued cost.

so if I used the 3 free fighters(y168F) and added them to the COS the cost would be 4 Ept + .....On turn y169S the cost your be 0......But the 2 "missing" fighter ARE used as replacement would they cost 1 Ept per fighter factoer .....This is what Im tring to find out...the "missing " fighter
By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Saturday, May 22, 2010 - 09:52 am: Edit

The 2008 sit says 10 points for the COG used on the JGP. There was a huge debate over this last year and many of us were playing the COG as just three very very expensive fighters. The revelation that we got two FCR fighters, as well, came as a nice suprise. Each free fighter factor gives one fighter in the COG be it () or [] in the same way that the Hydrans get to use their FFFs
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, May 22, 2010 - 11:13 am: Edit

ok then the rule is wrong in both cases.....Im sorry I miss that Huge Debate about that....then ARE the 2 fighters factors can be use ONLY as replacement; then like building a FCR the cost for the replacement fighter is 1 Ept per fighter factor, then on the COG the 2 fighter should cost the same as the replacement fighters or so call "missing" fighters......
By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Saturday, May 22, 2010 - 01:26 pm: Edit

I see your confusion as to the 'missing' element.
The cost in Y169 is 10EP because as soon as true HDWs come along the COG group (3)[2]that you built for the JGP magicaly turns into a five factor true fighter counter (5) at no extra cost. The book keeping to turn the JGP COG into a HDW COG at a future date and pay the 2EP to turn [2] into (2) is to difficult to track. It is a rules fudge to keep things simple.
Your JGP-Vs are in effect prototypes and you are paying an extra cost of 2EP to get a pretend carrier before the real lyran carriers come on line.
There is a historial rules issue as well in that the JGP was introduced in the old Carrier Wars rule set and had to be worked into the HDW rules of Combined Opps.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, May 22, 2010 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Yes I knew all that Jason.....But Im trying to get a ruling on the "missing" fighter....The COG date is Y168....I feel it still cost ONLY 1 Ept for eac FIghter Factors...and oyu can only have 1 COG-v for the JGP and you can a other till Y180...On one unit It not a game breaker too
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, May 22, 2010 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Michael

As Jason mentioned, for simplicity reasons, a COG costs 10 Ep's, with a discount of 2 Ep's per Free Fighter factor used.

The fact 2 'Fighter Factors', are initially 'FCR fighters' does not come into it.

It's likely, you will pay 4 Ep's (and 3 Fighter Factors - although if you save fighter factors or if playing with Annual Factors, you can reduce the cost) for a (3)[2], the Lyrans are marginally overpaying for 2 FCR factors.

However, as Lyrans prior to AO had no true fighter factor until 171+ - your gaining something you didn't have before!

Therefore, if you want a mini carrier, it costs 10 Ep's less 2 Ep's per free fighter factor.

No ifs, buts or maybe!

Hope this helps!
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, May 22, 2010 - 07:09 pm: Edit

ok I can do this....wait 1 turn ( not build the COG-V on Y168F) and build it on turn 2 (Y169S) for free then.......
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, May 22, 2010 - 08:59 pm: Edit

FEAR ....can we get a ruling on this
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, May 23, 2010 - 03:24 am: Edit

Michael

Yes, with Advanced Ops you can carry over fighters (for 1 year) - and so building the COG-V on Turn 2 would cost you 0 Ep's and 5 Free Fighter Factors (which technically doesn't make it free!).

You need to decide if losing 1 turn of the useage is worth it!


(P.S. I am not FEAR, so this isn't a ruling or anything )
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Sunday, May 23, 2010 - 08:42 am: Edit

Paul....thank and yes I know you are not FEAR...Mike Curtis is FEAR......What I posted in the last few days on here is what I think is wrong with the COG-V for the JGP.... and thank to Jason, Stewart and Craiq....Im still waiting on Mike ...or if Chuck if Mike is to busy to answer.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, May 23, 2010 - 09:25 am: Edit

This has all been answered before: JGP COG is 10 eps which breaks down into 2 eps for the module and carrier surcharge, 6 eps for the 3 carrier fighters, and 2 eps for the FCR fighters.

So, if you want to use five free fighter factors you can build one for 2 eps.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Sunday, May 23, 2010 - 10:30 am: Edit

Ok so I was right about the 2 "missing" fighters..And Im sorry to miss the answer before...when Im health issue and being out of work I got a lot to catch up with...
And Mike can you send me the posts or the date this Issue was posted on...and Thanks again Mike.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, May 23, 2010 - 10:39 am: Edit

You can look it up for yourself, it is in the Q&A or the SITs subjects somewhere. It is truly a SIT question and not a rules question. I have other Q&A to finish. Sorry.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 - 03:33 pm: Edit

What is the ruling on the Theater Transport...we can produce 1 FFT/DWT per turn plus any number/ or 1 of FFT/DWT......I cant find anything on this...
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 - 04:22 pm: Edit

I have some questions concerning the Enhanced Small-Scale Combat (Rule 323.0)

I am presuming it is official, and not playtest. It says as much in the description.

In particular, I'm a bit confused on the application of the additional modifiers (323.14).

If you have an X-ship, you get a +1. If you are facing an X-ship, you get a -1. Ok, so far so good, they would cancel out right? But then there is the additional line "ignore this modifier if condition applies to both sides".

Well, that means if both sides have an X-ship, then the modifier is ignored, meaning neither side gets a -1. But that line is not included with the +1 modifier -- so if both sides have an X-ship, *both* sides get a +1.

So, if you have a 9pt ship vs a 9pt ship, it's equal and no bonuses, but if you have a 9pt X-ship vs a 9pt X-ship, then boths sides get a +1 and it's potentially more deadly.

Am I reading that right?

*~*

Looking at the last two modifiers, I think I'm reading them right, but I want to confirm.

"Each side selects one of their units, then compares them to each other." Then it lists that if the defense factor is 2-4 points, put a -1 to the smaller side, if it's 5 points or more, apply a -2 to the smaller side. Those two lines are listed separately, so theoretically both can apply (I think).

So, if I have two warcruisers (7 compot each) vs a 5-point frigate and a pair of fighters, then I would compare the warcruser to the frigate and then the warcruiser to the pair of fighters, and get a -1 and a -2, applied both to the smaller side?

And this is on top of the -4 that side already gets for being outgunned 7 to 14?

Or... can the 'unit selected' be the same one for each comparison, and thus the first comparison would be a warcruiser vs the frigate, and then the 2nd comparison would be the same warcruiser vs the same frigate, (which doesn't qualify for the -2), and thus the only modifier is the -1 (and the basic -4)?

So, am I close, or am I way off with all this?
Thanks in advance.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Oh, and just to clarify:

As per 323.51, if a side in ESSC chooses to retreat as a casualty resolution (323.32), can the other side opt to pursue (thus creating a pursuit round of ESSC?)

I'm fairly sure the player can choose to retreat between rounds of ESSC, and thus could be pursued as normal, but I wasn't sure if the 'retreat-as-casualty-resolution' also created the opportunity for pursuit.

Thanks again.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 - 10:06 pm: Edit

So, if I have two warcruisers (7 compot each) vs a 5-point frigate and a pair of fighters, then I would compare the warcruser to the frigate and then the warcruiser to the pair of fighters

Nope, you select ONE of your units and your opponent selects ONE of his units and then you compare the two selected units...(the case was made for a DN vs 3xFF)
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 - 05:59 am: Edit

I cant find anything on this... what is the rate on Substitution and Conversion per turn/year for the Theater Transport (FFT/DWT)... Is there a limit on them.....I miss up on my last post ....sorry
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 - 07:07 am: Edit

If both sides have an X-ship, then the -1 penalty for X-ships is ignored. Each side still gets the +1 for the X-ship representing the superior tactical combat ability of the X-ship(s) in the force.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 - 10:13 am: Edit

But Thomas, that means that two X-ships will slaughter each other better than two non X-ships. Was that the intent, and why?

(I mean, I understand it if it were two groups of standard ships, each with an X-ship, because presumably the extra damage will fall upon the non X-ships. But can two X-cruisers can kill each other better than two standard cruisers?)
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 - 10:17 am: Edit

Stewart,

"Nope, you select ONE of your units and your opponent selects ONE of his units and then you compare the two selected units...(the case was made for a DN vs 3xFF)"

Yes, I understand this. I was selecting the CW vs the FF. But the rules I have show you two different modifiers listed as two different items (meaning, you check twice). So for the second check, do I select the 2nd CW vs the pair of fighters, or can the player select FF again (in which case, why it is listed like it were two separate checks).

Note: I am going by the PDF version of the rules from this website. I don't know where else they might have been published, or if there have been any changes.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 - 10:18 am: Edit

Kevin see reply in General Discussion Thread
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 - 10:25 am: Edit

Kevin wrote
________________________________________
Quote:
But the rules I have show you two different modifiers listed as two different items (meaning, you check twice). So for the second check, do I select the 2nd CW vs the pair of fighters, or can the player select FF again (in which case, why it is listed like it were two separate checks).
________________________________________
Where are you seeing this? I never saw that in the PDF from CL 37 or in the 2010 Rule which replaces the CL 37 rule. I know there's the individual ship comparison for a 0 or -1 to -2 to the smaller ship, and the overall comparsion of total compot vs defensive strength.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 - 10:48 am: Edit

Thomas,

Look in the F&E section on the discussion board, down near the bottom of the list, there is the ESSC discussion thread (listed as published in CL37). In there is the link of the PDF.

Now, on the PDF, in the list of additional modifiers, it lists the following entry:

"Each side selects one of their own units, then compares their choices to one another. (See 323.141) If the defence factor differential is 2-4 points, apply the modifier to the smaller ship's side."

The modifier was listed as -1.

But then the *same exact* item is listed again in the list of modifiers, but this time, it references a defence factor differential of 5 or more points. The modifier for that is listed as -2.

Now logically, you put those two together, do only one check, compare the differential, and if it's 2-4 points, it's a -1, and if it's 5 or more points, it's a -2. But... why wasn't it written that way?

The way it's written, it implies that you should do the check *TWICE*, comparing first a ship to a ship, to see if if there will be a -1 modifier. And if that's true, then logically the second check shouldn't be of the same two ships, so now you should compare two other ships to see if you qualify for an additional -2.

Now that all might seem rather wonky to you, but I noticed all that right after realizing that the X-ship negative modifiers cancel each other out while the X-ship positive modifiers don't, and so I'm kinda assuming that maybe there was a reason the rules were written the way they were.

Besides, I could see the rational for doing two separate checks on two separate sets of ships, though I personally disagree. So instead of going with how I would have written the rule, I posted the question to clarify what the intent of the rule was.

*~*

Note: I do not have CL37 in front of me, nor do I have seen if there are changes to the rule for 2010. I am only going by the PDF. It might be superceeded by now.

Anyway, thanks for responding, Thomas.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Q508.22: WHEN exactly is a planet considered captured? Immediately upon satisfying the conditions of 508.22 or only after the entire combat phase is over? I'd say "immediately" because the rules do not call out any provisos (like, "wait till the end of combat.") Why it's important: Say the Coalition attacks Kzinti SB 902, planet 1001, and all border BATS. During the combat phase the Coalition "captures" planet 1001 first and then destroys all border BATS *EXCEPT* for 701 - and then elects to resolve 902 (which also has a defending Zin fleet) before 701. After a brutal battle, the Zin retreat from 902. If 1001 *stops* being a Zin supply point immediately upon capture, then the Zin must retreat to 801. If 1001 stops being a Zin supply point only at the end of the combat phase, then the Zin fleet at 902 may and must retreat to 1001 (assuming the Zin are not outnumbered at 1001). Ruling, please.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 - 07:41 pm: Edit

Kevin, it's one comparison with three possible outcomes - if both have the same defense, add 0,
a difference of 1-4 add 1,
5 or greater, add 2.

Ted, yes a planet is captured at the moment there are no defending units and there are attacking units, but one does not have to retreat to a partial grid if there is a hex that connects to the main grid (302.733-3C).
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, May 27, 2010 - 10:17 am: Edit

"WHEN exactly is a planet considered captured?"

Didn't Chuck do a primer on this very thing? I thought he did and it was scheduled for a CL. Did it ever get printed? It was very helpful and should if it has not. (My CLs are with my rules 90 miles away from my current geolocation.)
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, May 27, 2010 - 10:36 am: Edit

Lar, I think you are referring to when a planet recovers from devastation, becomes a supply point and prouces EPs under various situtations.

That chart is in the 2010 rulebook. With the corrected chart in the Errata file for those who have the 1st run of the of the 2010 rulebook.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, May 27, 2010 - 10:55 am: Edit

Yeah maybe that is it...or maybe it was an example Nick gave a while back.

I doubt this helps but we have always played ownership as at the resolution of the current battle hex where no freindly units remain to dispute that they still 'own' the planet.

I remember though having the situation where later in the combat phase where a larger freindly fleet retreated over the planet (captured by the enemy previously in the same combat phase) and forced another battle that gave a different result and the planet was regained/retained. In this case though I dont think that Teds example of supply mattered for the retreat. One note though is that I dont think the RDU would regenerate between the first and second battle in the same phase.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, May 27, 2010 - 10:57 am: Edit

No, the RDU wouldn't generate because the enemy had never left the hex between the first battle and second battle.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, May 27, 2010 - 11:16 am: Edit

Personally, I think a planet has to be considered "captured" immediately upon driving out the enemy. If it's at the end of the combat phase, then you'd have to say the same thing about destroyed BATS and, frankly, previously retreated ships. There would be no point to evaluating supply at the instant of retreat at the end of each combat.

I believe any other ruling would lead to an extreme change in the game.
By James Wood (Jwood314) on Sunday, May 30, 2010 - 05:27 pm: Edit

I have a couple of Capital Assault questions:

1) When an SAF destroys a PDU, are the PDUs fighters counted in the destruction, or are they now homeless fighters? So if there is no where for them to land, they are now minus points?

2) If the entire battle line is destroyed do plus points carry over to the next round? Lets say he does 150 points of damage, and I can only resolve 142 by destroying everything, is there carry over?

3) Is there a limit on the EW generated by PDUs? So 16 generate 16 EW?

4) Lets say I destroy 6 PDUs in 1 round, got lucky on the SAF roll, he now has 30 minus points. The entire next round all I can do is remove those minus points. Can I still make an SAF attack to destroy more PDUs and the SAF ignores the minus points?

Thanks!
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Sunday, May 30, 2010 - 07:13 pm: Edit

James

1) The fighters become homeless and must find another home or become minus points. 501.62 in the core rulebook.

2) Yes they do carry over. See 302.63 Annihilation in the core rulebook.

3) The limit is 4 ew points. See 317.2 in AO.

4) Yes you can still make a SAF attack on the second round. SAF does not interact with minus points.

Paul
By James Wood (Jwood314) on Monday, May 31, 2010 - 06:46 am: Edit

Thanks Paul!
By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 03:33 am: Edit

i seem to recall allegations that de-mothballed ships get a discount on conversion (a la conversion during repair), but i am unable to find the rule. does it actually exist?

i am also confused about engineer units functioning as SAFs. 541.34D includes the passage "if it survives the attack...". it is categorically impossible for a SAF to survive making its special attack, is it not?

thank you.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 05:29 am: Edit

Chris ships taken out of mothballs don't get the conversion during repair discount. Therefore if you take a D6 out of mothballs (1 EP) and convert it to a D6M (5 EP) your total cost is 6 EP.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 10:09 am: Edit

Turtle is correct, there is no discount to conversion for ships being activated from mothball. But you can convert ships in mothball without activating them.
By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 07:24 pm: Edit

ok, s'what i thought. i have either misremembered or badly misconstrued a post a while ago from thomas. something about leaving E4s in storage only "computed" to me if converting them was cheaper when you got around to reactivating them.

anyone know anything that makes the 541.34D passage sensible in any way? if the engineer can be a reusable SAF in some way i am quite eager to know the trick, you see.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Chris see reply in General Discussion
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 09:37 pm: Edit

Chris,

SO Pg 11

541.34 point D
________________________________________
Quote:
An engineer regiment can function as a SAF, but if it survives the attack it is not destroyed but remains on the map. It can do this only once per game turn.
________________________________________
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Saturday, June 05, 2010 - 11:20 pm: Edit

The Hydran 4xPGS that start in the Old Colonies Squadron. They are organized with this fleet by the OOB charts, however they are mentioned with rules reference to 317.4 and 709.1B

317.4 states
...The Hydrans have four of these ships in the off-map area. Three of which can be brought onto the map (one per turn) starting with Turn #1. or any later turn at the Hydran players option the fourth PGS cannot be brought onto the map until it is converted into a PFT...

709.1B just talks about the free Pegasus ships I can start building when the old colonies shipyard comes active.

This rule specifically states that I can bring them onto the map one per turn starting turn #1.. however the fleet they are organized under says it cannot enter the map unless conditions are met? Which rule has precedence as being more specific. Both seem pretty dang specific to me, the 317.4 specifies the PGS class (it was introed to the game with this rule) but the note on the Old Colonies squardon is specific to that fleet of which the PGS are clearly members?
By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 05:55 pm: Edit

michael, that's the question, not an answer.

SAFs _never_ survive their attack, from (520.43). is (541.34D) a cryptically-worded exception to (520.43) in the case of engineers?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Chris,

I beg to differ... a COE is NOT a SAF, it is attacking on the SAF table. A SAF may ONLY be disrupted.. a COE coming in to attack on the SAF table can be DD crippled (to attack like a disrupted SAF) or DD killed to get no attack whatsoever. It is also NOT killed when it makes the SAF table attack.

It doesn't seen cryptically worded to me at all, by saying a COE which is a 0-8/0-4 unit that Survives makes it abundantly clear what the meaning of the rule is. The COE attacks on the SAF table. If you read other COE uses you see in many cases it acts like a Tug.. but we never try and say it IS a tug, only that in these situations it acts like one. So don't get wrapped up in the COE attacking like a SAF.
By David Baldwin (Djdave50) on Tuesday, June 08, 2010 - 08:20 pm: Edit

The D7N and D5N are assigned to the Home Fleet on the current OOB. The Home Fleet is not released until turn four. So the Klingons can not use their diplomats for the first three turns. They can buy one, but they can't afford it with all the other things they need the first three turns. Since other diplomats are available on turn one, those Klingon ships shouldn't be assigned to the Home Fleet, but should be listed under "General Units".

Unless it's intentional that my Klingons don't know what diplomacy is for the first three turns. (Why would they have dedicated diplomatic ships?)

Did I miss something?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, June 08, 2010 - 09:13 pm: Edit

This is clarified in F&E 2010.
(600.35) "Diplomatic teams (including Klingon diplomatic cruisers) and small transports carrying diplomatic teams are always released and can go about their business (540.0)"
(540.0) allows empires at Peace to use diplomatic teams.
By David Baldwin (Djdave50) on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 - 01:21 am: Edit

Jeff,

Thanks. Makes sense to me. I knew about that "at peace" thing as a general rule, but the dip cruisers being assigned to Home Fleet seemed like a specific rule, to me.
By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 03:09 pm: Edit

[substantial edit]

i do not believe michael's procedure for COE-as-SAF is consistent with the actual wording of the rules, but it certainly seems plausible as the intent.

can someone official-like please confirm that is how it is done?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Chris,

You are right, its not official. For an official ruling you will need FEAR to lay down the law!
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 02:23 pm: Edit

A diplomatically aligned Neutral Planet Generates ep's but is not connected to adjacent grids and is in its own partial grid until such time you are at war with the other neighboring power. They Accumulate ep's which may be used to locally construct defenses and/or accumulate.

1. May one use Orion Smuggling to transfer ep's to the planet to augment its indigenour ep's for construction projects?

1.a. If allowed could races not at war but otherwise accumulating funds via diplomatic action transfer these funds to the planet?

1.b. Same as 1.a. except may they transfer funds accumulated through the cancellation of pre-war construction.

2. May one use Orion Smuggling to transfer ep's out of the planets partial grid and into your main grid?

2a. If allowed would such smuggled funds be treated as any other diplomatic income in your treasury, or would they be treated as funds generated by cancellation of prewar construction and disappear at the end of the turn?
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 08:39 am: Edit

Help...I need to know IF a Drone ship(s) CAN be added after you got all your ships base on Command Rate set up for a Reserve Fleet......mholiver
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 09:11 am: Edit

I find the rule....thank
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, June 24, 2010 - 09:40 am: Edit

A question on Depot Level Repair.

Q: When using DLR to repair crippled ships is it one ship total per turn or up to one ship per depot track per turn?

The rules establish that each empire has one or more depot tracks and that each track has associated with it a seperate holding box. Then in the latter portion of the rules it hase a section for unused capacity in which its stated again about each track and how if you do not have a ship to place on the track blank slots travel along. Then it comes to this
________________________________________
Quote:
424.35: "A player has the option to take one crippled ship per turn from the depot hex and place it into the holding pool during the Production Phase to avoid wasting capacity."
________________________________________


The language "one crippled ship per turn" is strongly supportive of one ship total however when you keep reading "into the holding pool during the Production Phase to avoid wasting capacity" it is supportive of one ship per track.

Holding pool is nowhere else references, its called a holding box elsewhere and there is one holding box per track. This entire section goes into detail about the tracks about how if there is not a ship in the box to fill the 4 box on a track its wasted and travels along turn by turn empty then we get this way to prevent this waste.

I have several arguments why this rule could very well mean one crippled ship per track.

1. The language of 'One crippled ship per turn to the holding pool' could very easily be placed so that folks will not take every cripple they have and shove them into the depot box. Once in the depot box these cripples would be ineligible to be hit by drone raids or E&S raids, the language could easily be to prevent such things.

2. The entire section of these rules is speaking of each track and how empty boxes on the track move, and how capacity is wasted if a box on the track has nothing to fill it... then it moves to the section above speaking of using cripples moved from the depot hex to the holding pool. Either we completly shifted focus or it means one cripple may be moved to each holding box to fill in blanks in the depot tracks each turn.

3. Lastly, the depot can be working simultaneously on ships of a number of different types. If you were fortunate enough to have rolled for 4 different ships that had been destroyed and each had made the depot. Assuming they were the proper type your depot could begin repairing all four of those destroyed ships. The Lyrans could put a destroyed BC CA CW and DD all into the Depot in one turn without a problem. So there is no doubt the depot can accept 4 ship hulks to work on, why is it any harder to take cripples sitting in the location instead of a nearly destroyed hulk? There is no doubt the Depot has the ability to do the repairs if your willing to wait the 2 years it takes to do them.

With those three points I think there is a strong case to be made that the intent is to allow one crippled ship per track to be added to the Depot per turn. The language usage is somewhat explained, the nature and direction of rule is put into context, and a prima facie logical explanation shows the depot can make these repairs. In fact one would have to conclude that the only reason cripples couldn't fill unused capacity would be some sort of odd situation regarding industrial rules or somesort.

Depot Foreman: *Chewing on Stubby Cigar* "Yeah you gotta move this one out and take it over to the FRD its not damaged enough fer my guys to work on"

Fleet repair Adjunct: *Frowns and adjust his Leftenant Commander Epaulettes* "Whatever do you mean, the high command realizes it will take a long time.. but our repair capacity and budget is otherwise engaged.."

Foreman: *cutting him off* "Sorry guild rules.. my guys can't touch more'n one cripple ever six months.. got a contract with the shipwrights guild.. so"
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, June 25, 2010 - 06:29 am: Edit

See (424.2) Each track has its own "holding" box.

Upon further review, I believe that is one ship per track. Given that you could have multiple ships lost in battle that survive and are moved to the depot hex and the holding box. I believe that the process under (424.3) is repeated for each track in the depot.

Therefore, you could take 1 crippled ship per track in the depot hex and start it on the journey to repair.

The advantage of doing this is "free repair" of the ship(s) in question. The disadvantage is the ship(s) in question are unable to be used in any manner until the DLR journey is completed.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, June 25, 2010 - 10:33 am: Edit

Right, but same rule also says one ship in the hex. Seems to me to fairly clear it's one per turn, not one per track per turn.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, June 25, 2010 - 10:35 am: Edit

Q302.773 (F&E 2010) Regarding a chain of fighting retreats, does the old ruling still apply regarding automatic destruction of the retreating fleet after 3 successive fighting retreats? The new rules don't specify one way or another.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, June 25, 2010 - 07:29 pm: Edit

R318.11 Kzinti fast drone bonus applies to Small Scale combat (310) if it qualifies under (318.11).
By James Wood (Jwood314) on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 01:36 am: Edit

Can the Lyrans build a PRD at the Klingon capital? Additionally, the Lyrans have a BATS there. I see nothing that says they can not.

Thanks
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 04:17 am: Edit

FEAR - upon your return from Origins - could you please clarify/answer the Neutral Zone hex question?
..............................
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Request for clarification and reconsideration:


By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, April 30, 2010 - 05:46 am: Edit

FEAR - I beleive your answer on Neutral Zones unfortunately does not resolve this query, and Ted has sort of appealed it anyway.
........................

Summary - is it possible to remove your enemies ownership, and not claim it yourself - even if enemy ships are adjacent to the hex?

(i.e. return the hex to neutral).

Thanks
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 08:10 am: Edit

Q519.43: (519.43) Tugs and LTTs can move monitor pallets between supply grids.

Can a D5G or DWG move a monitor pallet between supply grids in a manner similar to theater transports being able to move tug pods from one supply grid to another?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 09:06 am: Edit

Q519.43: (519.43) Tugs and LTTs can move monitor pallets between supply grids.

Can a D5G or DWG move a monitor pallet between supply grids in a manner similar to theater transports being able to move tug pods from one supply grid to another?

A519.43: Yes, the D5G or the DWG can do this.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 09:34 am: Edit

Q519.23 (519.23) states that a monitor can be captured and then subsequently repaired and converted to the capturing empire's technology.

If the monitor is captured with a combat pallet, i.e. SCS pallet, is the pallet also repaired and converted?

Also would the monitor have to pay for fighter support line? PF's would obviously have to be purchased if such case is allowed.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 02:47 pm: Edit

July - August 2010 Archive

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 09:50 am: Edit

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but I would like to request an appeal of allowing Penal Ships to add on top of minus points for pursuit. Maybe in a retreat from a normal battle hex it might be OK, but from a Capital hex it downright crippling to the defender.

In my current 2010 game with Ted, I have now had three chances to chase him after he ravaged my capital hexes (twice from 1401 and once from 617). Ted was able to strip my PDUs and leave me with *tons* of minus points, points that I could not use and got to watch evaporate before my eyes (except for 12). In fact the last battle we just did over 617, I literally had 50 minus points, and I got to bring 12 into pursuit. Wow, really great. But that's been the game for many, many years now (it's like free damage for the Coalition), so I'm not going to argue that right now. But *every* time now, Ted had retreated with his 6 allowed minus points (4 in this last battle) and a D6J. The first time I chased him with a decent Kzinti line (around 60 compot), I didn't even do enough damage to kill the D6J after it's sacrifice mission (he had effectively 14 minus points, so the best I could do was 7 damage, if VBIR maxxed out AND I rolled a 6, which didn't happen). The second time was about the same, so I didn't even bother trying to pursue since I knew I could kill nothing with 7 damage points and he could kill one of my good ships. And then I had my pursuit from 617. I was able to bring a 93 Compot line. Even with a -1 EW shift, my average damage of 23 (-12 for D6J and minus) would only leave me with 11 damage, which of course is not enough to kill any 4 Def Compot ship in form like a mauler.

Now maybe it's just me, but I'd had three shots at it now, and two got me nothing and one I didn't bother to take because I *knew* I would be able to do no damage. Retreating from a Capital assault is *supposed* to be one of those few times when the Alliance can take out a key hull or two from the Coalition in pursuit. Now the only thing you get to kill is a D6J, hardly a *key* unit. All those crippled C8s, D6Ms and CV groups that used to be vulnerable are now perfectly safe behind 6 minus points AND a D6J. So, if the intent was to take the teeth out of Alliance (or late Coalition) pursuit lines from a Capital hex, well that has been done very very well.

I've reached the point where I don't even know why I bother with Pursuit anymore since at every key battle the Coalition will make sure to have a D6J to make even a normal pursuit very unlikley to do any real damage.

So, if this is the wrong place to post this I apologize, but I've reached the point after going through this a few times that allowing Penal sacrifice missions in Pursuit battles, I feel, needs to be seriously re-evaluated. From every pursuit I;ve had so far, they are way too powerful and in my opinion could even be considered a broken tool in the Coalition's aresnal (like SFGs used to be).
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 11:02 am: Edit

It's bad even with a F5J....
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Rob, I think you may be missing something. The limit on minus points is on voluntary minus points not involuntary minus points like those from homeless pdu fighters.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Thomas

I thought that until Ted pointed this out - 308.242

'The number of "involuntary minus point" that can be carried over to the persot battle is limited to 6 (12 in a capital battle)'

(which is something Ted persuaded SVC should include!).

I agree with Robert - the limits on minus points and Penal ships are far to powerful to the Coalition - which I did argue when 2010 was introduced.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 03:43 pm: Edit

I will have to look again, but the only limit on minus points should be on voluntary minus points. The reason for limiting voluntary minus points was to make pursuing a more viable option.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 04:13 pm: Edit

The key point is that the penal sacrifice mission is not considered minus points. So, if the pursuer does 20 damage (a lot on pursuit) and has 6 voluntary minus points, he nets 14 damage. However, if the pursee has a D6J, then before the pursuer applies those 14 damage points he's forced to use 8 to cripple the D6J. That leaves just 14-8 = 6 damage points to kill something. That's barely enough to kill a FF or DW or CL - much less a sweet unit(s). Since the D6J is 1:1, the smarter choice is to finish off the D6J, leaving 6-4 = 2 damage points net. That can be shrugged off, taken on fighters, or what have you. The result is that the pursuit battle was neutered.

On the other hand, the Klingon is still losing a penal cruiser, which is 9 EPs and no salvage.

Personally, I don't think it's so bad. But it is frustrating to Alliance players as the Coalition does capital assaults.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Well, let's see, would I rather loose a crappy Penal ship or a mauler or dreadnaught? I'd choose the Penal *every* time. It's like you're buying 8 special minus points in the form of a ship (and not a very good ship at that either). Every Klingon player would be nutz NOT to keep these things maxxed out. And I'm my opinion anything that is an auto-build like that may be broken rules wise. Not always, but generally if a unit exists in a game that you always build because it's worth giving up other things for, then that unit needs to be looked at very very carefully.

Thomas it's in the rules, just look it up under plus and minus points. Involuntary minus points have a limit now too.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 05:19 pm: Edit

Rob, you get no argument from me about the net effect is to reduce the effectiveness of Alliance pursuit forces (well, mostly Zin and Hydran and Fed on the Klingon border - but that is alot). I also agree it's a change from how the game was played before.

I suppose the bone of contention is, in the face of all that has changed in 2010, on the whole the net effect is unbalancing to the game.

Given that the game is generally pro-Alliance in the first place, I'd say not (though I know others argue that it's not pro-Alliance).

/me shrugs.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Robert Padilla,

The new rule set hasn't been out 6 months. How about adapting your tactics over a longer period before complaining that the rules are broken. The Old rule set allowed 14 minus points for the retreating attacker at a capital (including the J ship in that limit) and 14 total for the pursuing defender. Now you get 14 for the retreating coalition player (if a D6J is present), and 12 for the defending alliance player (including voluntary points) and a cheap kill of a J ship at one for one (effectively getting a free mauler attack). There just isn't a huge difference in the numbers for the old rule and the new rule so tell my why you're complaining?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Dan,

First off so what that the rules have not been out six month? Why does that matter at all? It's not like it's only been a week and I'm complaining about it. Hell I argued the same point during rules development and was basically ignored. And I let it go because I hadn't played the new rules yet.

But now that I have, and at best it's no worse than the old rules (only for the Klingons) and at worst things have gotten worse. You argue that 14 point was the cap before and you are correct, but how easy was it to get 14? Not very and you could only do it once per capital system. Now the Klingons can do that every turn, and no one else can. In reality in the old rules you'd be leaving with 10 to 12 minus.

And how would you change tactics Dan? There are no tactics now or then. The new cap was supposed to make pursuits bloodier, do you think that was accomplished?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Pursuits were always bloody enough before. I killed enough ships as the Alliance without a problem. I'm not in the "too many ships" crowd and yes, you have to adjust the way you do things because it's a whole new rule set. How many games have you played since March 1st. Realistically, one complete game if you play every weekend face to face.

Tactics? Try directing on the largest target you can the round before you expect your opponent to withdraw. You're not always right but that limits his chance to use minus points if you work it well and will surprise your opponent more often than not the first few times. Change up your BIR selection so he has a harder time gaming the damage he takes. Take an approach battle and burn off a few fighters before he gets to hit your capital system. Change your pursuit force to include some EW (works best with Kzinti and Klingon drone cruisers). When he uses a Mauler against you at your capital don't direct to cripple it, direct to kill it. If you can't do 28 points of damage over your fixed defenses where you have a huge ComPot and EW advantage you're doing something wrong.

Be honest, your big complaint is really that the Penal Ship rules work as intended. The Penal Ship dies instead of the target that it was protecting. Guess what, that's the intent of that rule. The new rules may have been intended to make the game bloodier, but restoring the original Penal Ship rule was to keep it from being too bloody.

Edit: This debate needs to move to General Discussion. Let's not flood the Q&A.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Dan, your points are all valid, but none of what you say are "tactics". Direct to kill a mauler, or something else to stop your opponent from racking up minus points? Doesn't work. But like you mentioned the minus points aren't *really* the problem.

Penal ships as written count as minus points when used for the sacrifice mission. But 2010 changed that wording to now be penal points and not minus point so that they were exempted from the cap. And please remember this benefits the Klingons and no other race. The big argument to cap minus points was because pursuit was not bloody enough. You may think differently, but you are in the minority. Most players and most games have demonstrated time and again that bringing in 7 or 14 minus points greatly defanged pursuit. So the cap was changed to 3 and 6. Great, that covers most cases *except* when a penal ship is involved. Now the Klingons get to have not 3 or 6 minus points, but effectively 11 or 14 (8 or 11 with a F5J). So pursuit is more bloody for everyone *except* the Klingons (and let's be honest this will cover the Lyrans too as any big assault will be a joint effort). So the Coalition got to keep the higher caps, and the Alliance gets nothing in compensation. Now maybe once AO gets revised for 2010 this will balance out again, but as it stands right now there is no contributing balance for the Alliance or for that matter the Romulans. If the master plan is to make this balance out when AO gets updated then I'll have no further complaint about it, but I strongly feel that this needs to be looked at.

So Dan if you want to debate further we can take this over to General, but please do not speak for me that this should all just get ignorned and it should not be appealed. My premise for my post was to appeal that decision, and nothing I have read here has changed my mind yet.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, July 02, 2010 - 08:48 am: Edit

By the SITs (all racial SITs), APTs have a salvage value of 0.2 EP, but PTRs have a salvage value of 0. Shouldn't the PTR generate salvage if the APT does? It's basically just a beefed up version of an APT, so I would think it's salvage value should be 0.4 EP.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, July 02, 2010 - 09:28 am: Edit

Robert, post that in the SIT section. It will never see the light of day here as I don't handle SIT questions.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, July 04, 2010 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Can free fighter factors be used in secondary supply grids? (The offmap grid specifically. The race does still hold its shipyard.)
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, July 04, 2010 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Was this ruled on once before? Free Fighter Factors are generated by the shipyard. If you still hold your original ship yard I believe that they appear there.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, July 04, 2010 - 11:12 pm: Edit

Could be; I have a hard time tracking down old rulings.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 05, 2010 - 08:47 pm: Edit

The F+E 2K10 rulebbok general unit SIT has PDUs listed as paying 1 point per fighter factor instead of .5 per fighter factor (i.e. a PDU is listed as costing 4+6 instead of the 4+3 it used to cost).

This is just a misprint, correct? And PDUs still cost 4+3 (or whatever, depending on how the PDU is being built)?

Thanks!
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, July 05, 2010 - 08:52 pm: Edit

Peter, post this in the SIT section. It will go unanswered here.

Be advised, that Ryan Opel, the SIT person is out of country serving the US Army and will get to it when he can.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 05, 2010 - 09:02 pm: Edit

I'll go post this in the SIT section. But is there, ya know, an answer to this question? It seems unlikely that I'm the first person to notice this. And that there isn't actually already an answer.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Monday, July 05, 2010 - 09:27 pm: Edit

Hey Pete
The copy of the SITs I got show .5 Ep per fighters
(508.31) say the same to build
(433.421) Say the Same to Self-Gen
(433.42222) say the same to Upgrade

They all say the same ..... .5 Ep per fighter

I hope this help........mholiver
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 05, 2010 - 09:33 pm: Edit

Yeah, weird. I just got the 2K10 rulebook, and on page 159, general unit SIT, PDUs are listed as costing 4+6, 5+6, 7+6. The rules on building PDUs still state that PDU fighters cost .5 per fighter, however. So I'm assuming it is just a typo. Has no one noticed this yet?
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, July 05, 2010 - 09:35 pm: Edit

Are you looking at the Federation SIT? There is an entry for the double fighter PDU which is available after Y181.

(EDIT: Page 159 is the Federation SIT, not the General SIT.)
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Monday, July 05, 2010 - 09:44 pm: Edit

I got the new rule book too,and you know I have not look at the SITs that came with the set...I been going by the 2008 version of the SITs.....John, I think Pete say it was in the General SIT from the 2010 rule book....I just check both Versons 2006 & 2008....they say .5 Ep.....I think too pete it got to be a typo also........mholiver
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, July 05, 2010 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Peter, this section is for rules questions. The SIT is a separate section and is handled by another person. Just trying to help you get your question answered.

If you have any further discussion as to why this is the way it is, take it up via email per board rules.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - 09:42 am: Edit

John wrote:
>>Are you looking at the Federation SIT?>>

Yes. Yes I am. Problem solved. Thanks!
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, July 09, 2010 - 10:39 pm: Edit

I have the following retreat situation:

Hex 1401 is held by the Coalition. Klingon and Lyran ships are present. No non-ship units are present. The Kzinti attack the hex. Several crippled Klingon ships are present in the hex. At the end of the first round of combat (approach was declined), the Coalition decided to perform a Partial Retreat (302.723). The flagship for the Coalition on the first round was Lyran. The Coalition partial retreated only a few crippled Klingon ships. The closest hex to Klingon supply is 1402 (planet 1504 closest Klingon supply point). The closest hex to Lyran supply is 1302 (planet 1202 closest Lyran supply point). For reference 1502 is Kzinti controlled.

Where and the Klingon ships retreat to? Rule 302.76 says that the retreat priorities of the race that provided the flagship must be used. However 302.761 allows allied forces to retreat seperately, but in this case it's only the Klingons doing a retreat not the Lyrans. 302.761 also states that if that option is used then all units of a given empire must retreat together. So would all Klingon ships have to retreat from the hex IF they selected 1402 (only selectable if 302.761 is invoked) instead of 1302 (required if 302.761 is not invoked)?
By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Friday, July 09, 2010 - 11:29 pm: Edit

what, if any, legal targets for ground attacks exist, other than SBs, PDUs, and their respective smaller cousins?

thanks
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, July 10, 2010 - 12:31 am: Edit

Sorry just realized I typoed in the first sentence of the second paragraph of my last post.

The question should be: "Where can the Klingon ships retreat to?" Sorry about that, just wanted to clarify as the question made no sense with the word "and" instead of "can"
By william powell (Bloodybill) on Sunday, July 11, 2010 - 06:36 pm: Edit

Hello there. I just started playing F&E with a friend. While I've had the game and all the modules for over 18 years I've never played other than solo games. Anyway, when the hydrans attack on turn three 601.162 states that the Hydrans are at a wartime economy to determine economic exhaustion. It also states that they recieve their sceduled PWC, but cannot build other ships. That is pretty clear to me, but on the Hydran order of battle there is no PWC. I had asumed that the PWC was the ships listed for turns 1 and 2 on the construction schedule(709.1), but the guy I'm playing says that since these ships are not specified as PWC that I don't get them. I was hoping to confirm this. Thank you for your time.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, July 11, 2010 - 07:27 pm: Edit

William, yes, the ships listed for turns 1 & 2 are the allowed PWC for the Hydrans.
By Bill Powell (Bloodybill) on Sunday, July 11, 2010 - 08:03 pm: Edit

thank you for your quick answer. there will much wailing and nashing of teeth tomorrow when we play.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 12, 2010 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Can allied tugs carry allied FRDs?

(i.e. can Lyran Tugs carry Klingon FRDs and vice versa?)

Thanks!
By James Wood (Jwood314) on Monday, July 12, 2010 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Easy question, when there is a PP on a SB to represent PFs, does that mean 3/6/or 12 PFs? Same with a P on a PDU is that 3 or 6 PFs?

Thanks
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, July 12, 2010 - 06:29 pm: Edit

Each P is 6 PFs on the unit in question. The PP on a starbase is 12 PFs. .
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, July 12, 2010 - 08:57 pm: Edit

Each PDU is allowed 3 PFs (502.51) and should be 'p' on the counter for odd groupings ('P' for even groupings)
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, July 12, 2010 - 10:41 pm: Edit

Thanks for correcting me Stewart. That's what I get when I post from my internet phone at work, rather than my desktop at home.
By James Wood (Jwood314) on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 05:54 am: Edit

Wow, so a home system with 20 PDUs can have up to 60!?!? PFs. So you could easily have over 554 compot in the Klingon capital, 20 PDUs = 180, 60 PFs = 120, 1 Klingonn SB = 48, 1 Klingon BATS = 18, 1 Lyran SB = 48, a 140 compot fleet. I think that this hex would require so many ships to take, that you would loose the war just trying to take the 1 system. LOL, you kill 4 PDUs with 30 points of damage, using a captured D6M, you end up with 48 negative points. Has anyone ever tried to take a system like this, you would loose 150 to 200 ships trying.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 06:33 am: Edit

Take further discussion of this to general disscussion, please. Just to confirm, each battalion has 1/2 a flottila or 1/2P.
By Andrew Dederer (Drewster) on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 06:42 am: Edit

The Gorns/Feds were considering going into Romulus near the end of "Elegant Mess". I had 20 PDUs and 2 SBs on the Capital. It would have been bloody, but they probably could have taken it in another couple turns.

This is why most Alliance counter-attacks focus on getting the Roms first, it takes a LONG time for PFs to make it to the east.

If it came down to taking Klinshai, figure the Klinks will have been reduced to little more than their "capital" and core (and most of that is likely devastated. they are also likely to be a bit short of ships.

Fortifications are nice, but if you don't have the ships to take the damage, they aren't that secure. More, if your ships are at your capital, they aren't guarding much else. That said, taking PF-backed fortifications is NO fun.

The other thing to remember, if Romulus or Klinshai falls, it's basically over for that Empire (no off-map bastion). The Feds and Gorns can burn a big chunk of their fleet killing the Roms and still have several turns of non-exhaustion to rebuild (at which point the Klingons get crushed).
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 10:35 am: Edit

Per 515.261: "Unescorted carrier tugs count as two ships for command rating purposes."

Also per 516.26: "Tugs with carrier pods or SCS pods do not require escorts, but can be escorted." This statement seems to imply that CV tugs are Single Ship Carriers.

Pursuit rule (307.22) states: "Carriers with missing escorts count as the original number of ships in the pursuit force, but as the actual number of ships for die roll purposes."

Question: If I include a CV tug in a pursuit force (6 ships maximum), does the CV tug count as two ships in this force? I'm thinking that it does not, since an unescorted CV tug only counts as two ships for command purposes, and there was never a missing escort to count against the pursuit force.
By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 09:47 pm: Edit

If a base's fighters/PFs react out to another battle, and another unit's fighters/PFs react into the hex, can the reacting attrition units land in the now empty hangars of the original base and contribute to the battle at full strength?

For example, the fighters on Klingon Bats 2218 react out to help in a battle in 2119. The Hydrans attack 2218; the fighters from 2318 react into 2218. Can six of these fighters base on 2218 to add to the compot of the battle force, or must they be independent?
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 11:49 pm: Edit

Adam's question has come up in my current game, though it involves the Fed sb fighters in 2808 reacting to the planet in 2708 and then the Feds capital fighters reacting into 2808. I'm probably going to fight this battle tomorrow night and plan on running away , but am still interested in the ruling.

Paul
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, July 15, 2010 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Adam, I believe that has been answered before. The search function on my end doesn't seem to work, so you'll have to look through the archives yourself. I believe, however, the answer was 'no'. Though I didn't understand why not at the time.
By Paul Middleton (Paul) on Thursday, July 15, 2010 - 01:29 pm: Edit

Kevin - I found a ruling in from May 2009 that deals with a somewhat similar situation, but it's not the same.

That ruling can be found here, but it involves the reacted fighters having their home base destroyed.

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/23040.html?1242935930

I am not attacking the Fed capital so that ruling won't come into play here.
By Nicolas Cluzeau (Starkadd) on Friday, July 16, 2010 - 02:12 am: Edit

I made a thorough search of the Q&A, but could not find an answer to my question.

So here is the question :

In a capital assault on a "single capital system", like the Gorn's, is the fleet present in the system obligated to form a battle force to defend the minor planet, or can it decline by 511.571 as long as it is not conflicting with 511.553 and wait the ennemy on the capital, allowing the ennemy to devastate the minor and destroying the PDUs without having to risk the fleet?
(This question is born because the attacker has 4 times more ships and can direct as he wishes on the Gorn fleet at the minor without taking much damage and then reduces the gorn fleet to rubble by allocating damage to DirDam, preventing the Gorn player to take damage - or so little to the minor)
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, July 16, 2010 - 05:54 am: Edit

Nicolas

Not a FEAR answer - but yes, you can decline to defend any planet, as long as another planet has defences.
By Nicolas Cluzeau (Starkadd) on Friday, July 16, 2010 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Thanks a lot, Paul.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 09:46 am: Edit

I'm a bit confused by the wording in 207.292.

Is it the case that at any time the tug (or other transport) either picks up OR drops off EPs in a transfer, that it can then immediately move back to the off-map area in the same turn? What about the case, for example, if the Kzinti capital is off-map? If a tug delivers EPs to the Kzinti off-map capital, can it then transfer immediately back to the Federation off-map area in the same turn? Or what happens if an on map tug delivers EPs to the off-map Kzinti capital? Can that tug then immediately move back on-map and back to the Federation capital in the same turn?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, July 23, 2010 - 09:41 am: Edit

Question about Battle Intensity in 2010:

Rule 304.41 states: "If one player has only units that cannot retreat (for example: a base, PDU, FRD, and/or convoy; even those with fighters/PFs) or must use slow retreat (e.g., convoys, towed FRDs), the other player selects both of the numbers (1-4)fo r the BIR. Variable
intensity can still be used."

Does this mean that in Slow Unit Retreat (302.742) if there are only retreating Slow Units, that the Pursuer gets to pick both BIRs? 302.742 makes no mention of Battle Intensity nor do the rules in 307.0 (Pursuit). At the very least I would expect to see in 307.42 (Special Cases) this mentioned if the retreating force consists solely of Slow Units.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, July 23, 2010 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Robert,

Check the F&E Master Errata it states I believe that in a slow unit retreat that the pursuer picks both BIR's
________________________________________
Quote:
(304.4) Variability against non-moble defenses: This includes both slow-retreat units and non-retreating bases. WE apologize that it was not reworded when "slow-retreat units" were created in the 2K revision.
________________________________________
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 09:05 am: Edit

Two relatively simple questions that the rulebook doesn't seem to actually answer:

A) A planet is damaged but doesn't get devastated. Does that damage stay at the planet till next turn, or does the planet "heal" (i.e. a planet takes 5 of 10 damage for devastation. Does the planet take 5 or 10 damage to devastate if it is attacked again next turn)?

B) A fleet of 10 ships flies over a single enemy crippled ship. Does the single crippled ship pin something, or can the fleet of 10 ships ignore the single crippled ship, as a single crippled ship can't pin a non crippled ship?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Strictlhy speaking, it would pin one ship (it's a 1/2 SE) and must be pinned...
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 08:04 pm: Edit

You'd think, but (203.54) specifically says "a crippled ship could pin a crippled ship, two crippled ships could pin an uncrippled ship...", indicating, at least in theory, that a single crippled ship *can't* pin an uncrippled ship. Although it doesn't say that anywhere either.
By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Sunday, July 25, 2010 - 01:54 pm: Edit

This has come up before - the 1/2 ship is pinning one half of the non-cripple. It is the moving player that has to leave ships behind to meet pinning requirements. So unless its a B10 leaving the deck section behind while the boom goes off it is rather hard to leave 1/2 a ship behind. Something along similar lines applies about a single normal ship pinning a single x-ship
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, July 25, 2010 - 02:00 pm: Edit

So that means what? That the phasing player gets to ignore the single crippled ship (as it isn't forced to leave a ship behind for the cripple) or that the phasing player is forced to leave behind a ship for the cripple (as it is forced to leave behind half a ship, can't, so it has to leave behind a full ship)?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, July 25, 2010 - 10:21 pm: Edit

You're forced to pin it with one ship (of your choice)...
By Andrew Bruno (Admeeral) on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 03:33 am: Edit

..or 3 figthers.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 08:28 am: Edit

I don't think you can leave 3 fighters behind without their carrier.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 11:00 am: Edit

Michael,
________________________________________
Quote:
Robert,

Check the F&E Master Errata it states I believe that in a slow unit retreat that the pursuer picks both BIR's


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
(304.4) Variability against non-moble defenses: This includes both slow-retreat units and non-retreating bases. WE apologize that it was not reworded when "slow-retreat units" were created in the 2K revision.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________


My question goes more towards the vague nature of the wording of the rule than of anything else. I "get it" that if the only units in a battle line are units that cannot retreat and/or must use slow retreat that the attacker gets to pick both BIRs. Great. But if that case also holds in Pursuit, then at a minimum there should be a cross reference so people don't miss that. It also has the effect of making slow unit pursuits *very* deadly to the slow units. Not sure if that was the intent of the wording, but that's how it is right now.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 03:51 pm: Edit

SVC/Fear

2010 appears to have introduced a discrepancy in Fleet deployment areas and activations.

Via Rule 705.0, 1705 and 1805 got moved into the Dukes Fleet.

Historically, these had been Marquis hexes.

Clearly, 1705 and 1805 are still in one of the two Marquis provinces (as most provinces are 5 hexes in size, and the map 'as currently drawn', has them in the 1704 province) - and this is confirmed by 601.12, which states the two provinces adjacent to Federation space are 'protected' and if Coalition units enter the area, Limited War with the Federation starts. i.e. there is no reference to 1705 and 1805 NOT being in the Marquis provinces (other than set up deployment)

Therefore, five questions arise - after 'turn 0' (i.e. after deployment).

1) What province are 1705 and 1805 considered to be in?

2) If they are part of both Dukes and Marquis territory, can the 6 unrelased Marquis ships react to Coalition movement into those two hexes (or indeed move via the unreleased fleet rule into those two hexes, and if so, could they be involved in combat?).

3) Is considered part of the Marquis activation area (rule 601.12)

4) Could the Coalition leave a ship in 1705 or 1805, and therefore disrupt one of the Marquis provinces income.

5) If it is decided 1705 and 1805 are NOT part of the Marquis activation areas, what effects does it have on the game,as the Coalition can now build a SB in 1805. This generally goes against the rule that fleets and provinces on possible enemy borders are unreleased - (i.e. it would allow the Coalition to build a hard point, which the Alliance would generally be unable to stop (i.e. pin the Kzinti out, which could be around 1401 to also cover the main front) and the Federation is unable to react to it, although it is next to the 4th Fleet area!)

Thank you
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 04:38 pm: Edit

I am not aware of any change having been made to that (or any deployment areas), although I vaguely recall some question in a Captain's Log (all of which got processed into 2010) about a hex or two that some players thought were HERE when they were in fact never HERE but always over THERE. I'm not sure if those were the same ones or not, but if so, the clarification (not change) was made years ago in CapLog, not in 2010, but then, I'm trying to dredge up vague memories of something.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 04:43 pm: Edit

The issue is that (601.12) specifically states that if a Coalition unit enters either of the Kzinti provinces that are adjacent to the Federation Neutral Zone (generally known as the "Marquis Zone") before turn 7, the Federation go into Limited War.

Right. In the 2K10 ruleboook, (601.12) then goes on to say "if BATS 1805 is upgraded, the Coalition can attack it without activating the Federation." Apparently, as technically hexes 1705 and 1805 are in the Duke's deployment areas, people have taken this to mean that the Coalition can freely enter hexes 1705 and 1805 (which are part of the two provinces adjacent to the Federation Neutral Zone) without activating the Feds. Except that (601.12) doesn't say this. It only says that the Coalition can attack BATS 1805 without activating the Feds if the BATS is being upgraded.

Which leads to a very ambiguous rule.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 07:04 pm: Edit

I don't think you can say it is "very ambiguous". It says what it says. The only ambiguity is "If I pretend I don't understand it, maybe I can get a ruling that I like more than what it actually says."
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 07:25 pm: Edit

SVC wrote:
>>I don't think you can say it is "very ambiguous". It says what it says.>>

So I'm taking this to mean that the Coalition can only attack BATS 1805 if it is being upgraded, correct? As that is what the rule says?

>> The only ambiguity is "If I pretend I don't understand it, maybe I can get a ruling that I like more than what it actually says.">>

Well, no. I've been reading the rule as a completely literal one--i.e. the Coalition can only attack BATS 1805 if it is being upgraded. Otherwise, that BATS and those hexes are still off limits. As that is what rule (601.12) literally says.

In all my questions to the F+E community at large in General Discussions, they all seem to think that "the Coalition can attack BATS 1805 if it is being upgraded." means "the Coalition can enter hexes 1705 and 1805 whenever they want, and leave ships there, and attack that BATS in 1805, without activating the Feds." Which isn't what it says. But what they all seem to think it means.

Which is why I called it ambiguous. As it literally says X. But a lot of people who have a lot more experience with this game than me seem to think it means Y.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Yeah, "seem to think", uh-huh.

When FEAR is done with this, I'll see if anything really is wrong.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 08:47 pm: Edit

SVC wrote:
>>Yeah, "seem to think", uh-huh.>>

I don't know that this response is helping clarify anything.

It seems like a very cut and dry question--does "The Coalition can attack the BATS in 1805 if it is being upgraded" mean, literally, that they can only attack BATS 1805 if it is being upgraded (and under no other circumstances), or something else?

>>When FEAR is done with this, I'll see if anything really is wrong.>>

I don't think anything *is* really wrong. The rule says what it says, and if taken literally, it means if the Kzintis upgrade the BATS in 1805, the Coalition can violate the Marquis Zone and attack it. Otherwise, they can't enter that hex/province as per the rest of the rule (601.12). This is what the rule reads. This is what *I* think it means. But an awful lot of F+E players (who aren't me) seem to think otherwise.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 09:03 pm: Edit

I'm in the "awful lot" category. I suppose I could be wrong, though.

Also, I think SVC might be in the "awful lot" category as well - but has deferred judgment in favor of letting FEAR give it a detailed review.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 10:36 am: Edit

There is a process. It involves FEAR doing his thing and sending it to me. My comments were merely about the process, not a ruling.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 10:50 am: Edit

And, with FEAR laid up in the hospital with no reference material for at least a week longer than expected it may be some time before we get to this.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 10:58 am: Edit

FEAR needs a Brain-Pal. Heck, we all do.

[Brain-Pal is from the novel "Old Man's War" by John Scalzi and is a nanotech reference and communication computer directly operated within the brain. It also monitors body function and maintains nanites in the blood.]
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 11:24 am: Edit

FEAR ruling requested.

Q314.28. Fact pattern: On turn AT1 a Kzinti DNL validly raids a Lyran hex containing three Lyran FFTs that, on CT1, had been validly given the assignment (paid) to begin working on a colony. The Lyran player calls up a POL in response to the raid. A reaction battle round ensues. Because 4 Lyran ships are present, under Rule 310.11, normal combat is selected, not ESSC combat. The Kzinti DNL scores 4 damage; the Lyran forces score 3 damage. The Lyran player retires the called-up POL to duty to resolve the 4 damage; the Kzinti DNL ignores the 3 damage for now, but accumulates 3 "plus" points. The Kzinti player then elects, under 314.28, to perform an "alternative attack" in lieu of province disruption. The Kzinti player selects one of the FFTs at random as the target of the attack. Per 314.28, single combat then ensues between the DNL and one FFT.

Sub-Question 1: Please confirm that even though 314.28 calls for "single combat" between the DNL and FFT, 310.11 requires the normal combat system be used for this combat. Alternatively, please rule whether the single combat uses ESSC (310) because it is a separate attack not associated with the initial combat (and if so, whether the plus and minus points disappear).

Assume that normal combat was, indeed, selected to conduct the special attack. During this round, the Kzinti player scores 2 damage; the Lyran player scores 1 damage. The Lyran player is forced to cripple the FFT and accept 2 "minus" points. The Kzinti player has accumulated 3+1=4 "plus" points, but may still ignore them for now.

Sub-Question 2: 314.28 only calls for "single combat" but does not state that only one round is fought. Please confirm that, with respect to the "alternative attack," combat rounds continue until one side retreats or is destroyed; or, confirm that the raid is now over after one round and the DNL withdraws to the raid pool.

Sub-Question 3: Confirm that the DNL may not pursue the crippled FFT, if it retreats, as implied by the provisions of 314.28 regarding slow retreats and the provisions of 314.244C which state no raid can ever result in a pursuit battle (though this latter rule is in the context of the reaction battle, not the special attack).

Sub-Question 4: Whether or not the FFT is crippled or killed, the colony development appears to have been disrupted (446.12). However, this rule is not clear as to what happens when two other FFTs still remain in the hex to continue colonial development. One reading of 446.12 is that if one FFT withdraws or is destroyed, the entire EP and turn of development is lost. However, under F&E 2010 rule 509.1-X in view of 509.23, the player would lose only 0.33 EPs (1/3) and 1/3 of a turn of work (effectively delaying the colony by 1 turn - but the last, 4th turn could be finished by a single FFT). Please confirm that this latter result is the correct one.

Thanks for consideration. End question.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Isn't all Raid combat conducted by SSC? And wouldn't the DNL fight the Pol first then fight the three FFTs?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Mike, just as an assist:

CL30 rulings
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 04:19 pm: Edit
"(601.12) The Marquis area remains an “unreleased fleet” until the Federation enters the war or until the Klingons invade this area, so bases there cannot be upgraded or built. Hex 1805 is part of the Duke’s fleet, so while that BATS can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation. "
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 08:25 am: Edit

Dan,

The reaction battle had four ships on the defending side, and the defender elected to use normal combat instead of SSC.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 10:12 am: Edit

Question:

Acording to (434.32) Activations can only be done when at War-Time economic status. Since EPs earned under (540.22) and (540.23) can be spent at the owner's discretion can the Romulans use their diplomatic income to activate mothballed ships under (434.32)?

(Can somebody please reconfirm (434.32) for me. I'm at work and don't have a copy of the F&E2KX rule book. I'm going off of F&E2K.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 10:41 am: Edit

434.32 in 2010:
"WARTIME: Mothballed ships can only be activated
when at Wartime economic status (652.2). The
Klingons can activate ships on Turn #1 as they are at Wartime status."

Also see 603.17:
"The Romulans on Turns #1 -#9 are at a wartime economy (for purposes of future exhaustion)but are not at war."
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 12:25 pm: Edit

Robert,

They are not at war, but are on a Wartime economic status.

Now, before people go nuts over this because it is just too good a deal if the Rom can start activating ships on turn 2 (they could activate everything except 3 ships before turn 10). I have an idea to limit this if the Rom can activate ships.

Add a Rule to the Diplomat rules section preventing the Rom from activating ships before the Klingons go to full war with the Federation as they have no reason to rapidly expand their forces before that. And require than the Klingons have a Diplomat in the Romulan capital on any turn that the Roms activate any of their Mothball ships. And finally, restrict all of these activations to the Home Fleet prior to the Rom going to full war. This prevents them from stacking extra ships on the border and gives them some ships to stick in their Raid Pool on turns 7 through 9.

I believe that the rules do, as written allow the Rom to activate ships but also agree that this is just too good a deal if not restricted.

Submitted for FEAR review.

Edit: After thinking about this, I think this goes beyond a simple rules question. Please submit to FERT for review. I think this one slipped past us when we were working on Strat Ops.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Is there no longer a line about how the Romulans have to be at war with both the Federation and the Gorns before they can begin activation of mothballs?

Back in F&E2K, it was typically turn 13 before the Romulans could start activating ships. See 704., Rom OOB, for the notes on the Imperial War Reserve. Also see scenario notes 603.17, where it specifically says the Romulans cannot activate ships on turns 1-9. Was all that removed in F&E2010?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Kevin,

I missed that. I believe you are correct and I withdraw the issue.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 09:40 am: Edit

A nice simple rules question:

(509.36) says that unused pods in a partial grid not attached to the main grid are stuck in that partial grid. At what point, if the partial grid gets a supply path to the main grid during a turn, can the unused pods get transfered to the main grid?

(This is using plain F+E2K10, no expansions, so no mini tugs flying around to carry extra things.)

For example: The Hydran main fleet is at planet 0718 having lost the capital. 0718 is a partial grid, not attached to the main grid. At the start of a turn, a Hydran tug wants to drop a pod to be able to carry EPs out of the partial grid. If, during the turn, a valid supply path is created to the main (off map) grid, can the unused pod in the partial grid get transfered to the main off map grid by those dedicated staff officers?
By Chris Riegel (Chrisr) on Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 11:01 am: Edit

Can espionage/sabotage (including assassination) be carried out against future belligerents? If not, can units of active belligerents be targetted in neutral territory? - e.g., ambassadors or interned ships - I could, for example, see crippled Marquis ships taking refuge in the federation being targetted for hijacking, or ambassadors carrying out "required functions" being offed to prevent entry of an empire to the war for a turn or 2. The latter could be game altering on a single die roll.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 04:33 pm: Edit

can any one help me find a rule about the Commercial Convoy......I cant remember when this rule is at....it base on the distance bewteen Starbases the Con Cov travel ...is 3 or more hexs apart or what
Im planning to upgrade to 2xBATS to 2xSBs with out Fighters Iine hex 0809 (Lyran BATS) and the other in Hex 1209 (Klingon BATS) will be up grade to BS...so that I can run the Commercial Convoy between those to points you get EPs faster....is the 3 hexs apart from each BS is this legal to do that...I remember their a rule on this but I cant find it..mholiver
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 04:51 pm: Edit

See last part of this rule:

(443.53) PARTNER RACES: A given Commercial Convoy is linked to the two designated partner races and cannot deliver EPs to any other race. If it sets out from one race, e.g., the Gorns, fails to reach the second, e.g, the Federation, and later returns to a Gorn supply node, there is no EP gain for either race. A Commercial Convoy cannot deliver EPs to a starbase within three hexes of the starbase where it began its trip.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 05:33 pm: Edit

Nick ....Thank you.....I look right at that rule and did not see it.....(Im going Blind ggggeeee)
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 06:09 pm: Edit

so it legal for what Im going to do to my Brother ...more money for Invasion of Federation on turn 7
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 09:33 pm: Edit

M Oliver,

The Com Con moves 2 hexes a turn and when it arrives it MUST STOP. So there is no difference in 3 or 4 hexes. Trust me you can do this easier by picking an appropriate klingon Bats 4 hexes from the Lyran SB closest to Klingon space, saving yourself the cost of a SB and if you can put it in the right place it becomes a nice base for repairs in ZTO.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 10:13 pm: Edit

Parker

hex 0809 (Lyran BATS) and the other in Hex 1209 (Klingon BATS) will be up grade to BS.... I feel they are in the right spot.... and the rule say "a Starbase not a BATS" if Im reading your post right.. and the 2 new grade Starbases will support the ZTO...plus help on funding on the attack on the Fed..... getting the 10Ept faster for me to do it this way .....
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 11:32 pm: Edit

No it won't but if you want to build two starbases when you need only build one knock yourself out.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Mholiver,

You're going to spend 56 EPs to speed up your convoys? How long is it going to take to earn that back?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 01:12 am: Edit

At least between the klinks and lyrans you will break even about turn 14.
By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 04:46 am: Edit

as michael p pointed out, it only requires upgrading one starbase. pay for the upgrade on turn 5, and on turns 6, 10, 14, etc. you collect 10 EPs that you wouldn't otherwise get.

if you figure the combat and repair capability of a largely redundant starbase is intrinsically worth ballpark 10 EPs, then you get an RoR of about 18%, over the course of the game. even if you value the other attributes of a starbase at zero, you get RoR just under 10%.

it seems to be a more attractive investment than colonies or survey ships.
By William Stec (Billstec2) on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 06:21 am: Edit

Don't forget you can build the SB as a SB(0) to save money.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 08:34 am: Edit

thank you Parker & Chris for pointing that out.....you right...I need only 1 upgrade not in hex 1209 at hex 1009.

Daneil......2 would be 60 not 56 ....it going to cost 30 now

Chris....in way you are right but later in the war...Commercial Convoy are not affected by the Economic Exhaustion of either trading partner.....plus I be used WYN Trade, Build colony, Suvreing, and sell ships to WYN...plus I can send Lyran lease Ept little faster to Klingon plus a New BS to support ZTO

Willian...right but I will have 6 figher from the BATS on the Starbase
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 09:09 am: Edit

M Oliver,

or 908.. and if you can protect it 906 is an even better spot since that will be a useful hardpoint for use against the Kzinti.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 09:35 am: Edit

You guys might want to move the discussion out of the Q&A topic, FEAR will have a difficult time catching up as is.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 09:37 am: Edit

I feel 1009 will be safer...
0906 can do, but I will have to leave a task Force to protect when Upgrade....
0908 is 2 hexs away ...and that will not work but the (443.53)
but thanks.....mholiver
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 08:57 pm: Edit

Mholiver,

See rule (441.22). A BATS can be upgraded to a SB without addin the 6 extra fighters for only 28EP as opposed to 30+6. Upgrading two SB without fighter would be 56EP.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 09:15 pm: Edit

But the SIT table on here...off this Site...for the Races.....all the upgrade BATS to BS say 30....ok thank on that it as me 2Ept more now
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, July 31, 2010 - 04:57 am: Edit

FEAR - a formal question (rather than discussion!!) for you (or SVC)?

We are playing with with F&E2010, and all expansions except SO.

It is Coalition Turn 4, and the Coalition have attacked the Marrquis provinces (1704 primarily, so the Dukes deployment area issue is not relevant!).

This sends the Federation to Limited War.

What is the Federations ship 'production' rate?

602.4 Confirms 'increase ship production' occurs

654 Confirms under point U 'Ignore the PWC schedule and build whatever it wants within the defined production schedule'

The only 'defined production schedule' I can find is 656.0 - Federation Early War. Some people think this is only for Federation full war (Klingon invasion of Fed space or Hydran activation), whereas others (including myself) believe it covers both Full War and Limited War.

On that basis, I believe turn 4 production is

4CVA (Special Turn 4 FEW)
1 x CA (next production Cycle)
3 x NCL (1st turn FEW)
3 x FF (next production Cycle)

The wording doesn't help - as 656 refers to 'next production' or 'first turn production' cycle, and I have assumed both are the same, as without it, over the first 3 turns, Federation ship production doesn't increase (it's the same), and the PWC provides for more ships earlier.

Summary - First three turns of production
F&E2000 Limited War 11+14+11 (or 28) = atleast 36 ships

F&E2010 PWC 10+7+11 = 28

F&E2010 FEW (without assumption) 7+8+13=28

F&E2010 FEW (with above asumption) 11+8+13 = 32

Only a very marginal increase over pre-war, but from the 4th turn of FEW production, the difference does increase quicker.

I also think the FFS introduced in AO also needs to be included in the above values, as F&E2010 seems to have bulked it into normal FF production - whereas clearly it was part of keeping AO balanced (i.e. the Federation is penalised for playing with F&E2010 and AO, but isn't with F&E2000 and AO).

So that adds a ship on turn 4 and 6, making it 34 ships, or a circa 20% increase, which still doesn't add much, but does atleast show 'a fair' production increase (to me) for an Empire at limited war, but trying to avoid full War.

Can you please confirm if FEW is used for Limited War, and what turns (Spring 170) 4 to (Spring 171) 6 production should be?

Thank you

Paul
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, July 31, 2010 - 07:13 am: Edit

got you Nick sorry
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Sunday, August 01, 2010 - 10:48 am: Edit

anyone please

In the (105.0) SEQUENCE OF PLAY

1) What Phase does the Tug doing Mission - H Loan the Economic it carring to a other Empire.

2) What Phase does the Tug doing Mission - H unload the Economic it carring to a other Empire.

3) What Phase does the Commercial Convoy give to the Empire the 10Ept

4) What Phase does the sale of warship to the WYN happen

5) what Phase does the Races get the Ept for the sale of the Warships to the WYN
By Jose R. Barreto (Jbarreto) on Sunday, August 01, 2010 - 11:35 am: Edit

Are fighter strikes (319.0) no longer in the game? I see the reference to the rule in the FE2010 rules but the actual rule is not in any of the expansion rulebooks that I can find.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 01, 2010 - 11:42 am: Edit

(319.0) Offensive Fighter/PF Strikes is on page 16 of the Fighter Ops rulebook. On back of the page with (602.49) Limited War.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, August 01, 2010 - 12:35 pm: Edit

443.51 states that the 10 EP from a commercial convoy are received _immediately_ upon arrival at a legal destination point.

443.21 creates an exception, stating that a commercial convoy cannot "arrive" as a result of retreat movement.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Sunday, August 01, 2010 - 03:12 pm: Edit

thanks Jason....that answer #3 for me
By Jose R. Barreto (Jbarreto) on Sunday, August 01, 2010 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Thanks for the quick response Nick.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 01, 2010 - 06:54 pm: Edit

MH, I believe the following are the answers to you questions under the 2010 rules.

1. At moment of movemnet when it is carrying EPs. Designate Tug Missions, or Raid Movement, or Op Movement, or Strategic Movement

2. At the point of arrival during movment to the receiving empire's capital.

4. Upon arrival in the WYN hex by appropriate movement type.

5. Phase 10B.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Sunday, August 01, 2010 - 09:31 pm: Edit

Thomas

1)Ok Understand that now

2)I was thinking "At the point of arrival during movment to the receiving empire's capital." I was thinking it was at any StarBase as the point of arrival

Thomas and again thanks
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, August 02, 2010 - 12:43 pm: Edit

MHO

#2. (435.22) specifically states receiving empire's capital. However there is an exception in (435.25) to partial supply grids.

I thought that there was an exception for partial grids. It just took me a day to run it down.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, August 02, 2010 - 01:37 pm: Edit

Correct if you drop off EP's at anywhere except a capital (Or the Wyn Cluster actually) they form a satellite stockpile which has its own rules for handling.

If you want the EP's in your treasury to spend you need to move them to the capital.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Monday, August 02, 2010 - 03:41 pm: Edit

ok got you Thomas and Michael....and thanks again to all the help.
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 - 11:05 am: Edit

I have tried to search the Q&A forums, and I have read and re-read the raid + special raid rules and I'm not sure if I have it right.

Regular raids: 1 ship can react in from any hex adjacent to the target hex (or call up a police ship). Then the reacting ship + any in the target hex can fight the raider. Then the raider could disrupt the province if he survives.

Special raids: the 1 ship can react over to the attack hex. Then the raid is conducted. Then up to three groups can roll to intercept the raiders. If one group does intercept, do they add in the ship that reacted when they fight? Or can the ship that reacted automatically fight (not needing an interception roll) without other interceptors. Or what?

Is my understanding close at all?

Also, if there's EW at the location of the target (PDUs or a base), but not on the target can that EW be used to modify the raid attack roll?

Can someone give play examples of how the different raids work? Purty please?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 - 05:32 pm: Edit

On the question of limited war and production schedules:

Limited War is considered Wartime for purposes of production restrictions; see (652.21). This includes the availability of an empire’s production schedule; also see (654.1U). For the Federation the rule (702.5) applies if the Marquis is attacked prior to turn #7 or if the Klingons do not invade after turn #6.

(702.5) SPECIAL NOTE ON EARLY WAR
If the Federation is attacked on Turn 1, 3, or 5, treat this as Turn 7 (Fall 171) for production purposes. If the Federation is attacked on Turn 2, 4, or 6, treat this as Turn 8 for production purposes. Thereafter proceed with Turns 8 (if applicable) and 9, and then to the full wartime production rates. Ships not available are replaced by basic hull type. Also applies if the Hydrans activate the Feds. CVA groups cannot be built before Turn 6. See (432.5) for the first two CVB groups. Any NCLs on the production schedule are replaced with CLs or DDs as NCLs for Turns #1 through #3.

Early war Production Schedule:
First Fall War Turn: DN, CA, 3xNCL, 3xFF (The first 3xDN’s Y168F, Y169F and Y170F are activations not new construction. They take up the SC2 build slot for those years.)
First Spring War Turn: [CVA+ECL+2xDE), CA, 3xNCL, 3xFF.
War Turn 3: Begin using Y173 Production Schedule.


Bottomline: Outside of the Federation exception above, an empire at limited war has full access to its production schedule (unless otherwise limited within the rules).
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 - 05:37 pm: Edit

Just a quick reminder that the Romulans get their turn #10 production schedule if they go to limited war and do not attack the Federation.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Thanks Chuck!
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, August 09, 2010 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Q310.14 (320.354). Question regarding pursuit of drone raiders and ESSC. The old drone raid rule 320.354 states that the pursuer gets a +1 to the die roll of the old "small scale combat" system under previous 310.0. However, the new version of 310.14 in F&E 2010 (ESSC) replaces the old rule. The +1 no longer seems to make sense given that the two systems were entirely different, and the net effect of +1 is entirely different (for example, under the old system you received an 11% bonus, versus a variable bonus - and the old system had to have a way of accounting for the fact that raiders' compot was halved, though the new system automatically accounts for the halving of compot). So the question is, does the +1 bonus referenced in 320.354 apply to the new ESSC system (310) when pursuers catch drone raiders.

My personal take is "no." ESSC accounts for many different bonuses already, drone raiders are NOT mentioned in the new rules, and the two systems were entirely incompatible. However, if a bonus is to be retconned into the game, that's different.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, August 09, 2010 - 01:16 pm: Edit

FEAR, to expand on Ted's question a bit:

The only current downside to a drone (or fighter) raid is the Interception battle. Clearly the intent of the Interception rule was to make it *possible* to damage or destroy one or more of the raiding ships. In my opinion there should be some type of bonus given to the Intercepting ships. Now I think Ted is right and that +1 does not makes sense. Personally I think it should be +2 or maybe even +3. The Interception should be very damgerous, and something like that can help to put the risk back into the drone raids (and fighter raids). Or maybe make the plus equal to the BIR of the raid?

I don't want to clog up your area with ideas, but I just wanted to add my thouhgts to this question.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, August 09, 2010 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Q320.353. Question regarding taking damage under ESSC in F&E 2010 in the single pursuit battle round after a drone raid. Situation: Drone raiders are intercepted after performing a drone raid. The drone raiders take 1 casualty during the single round of combat. Normally, under ESSC, that casualty may be resolved as "retreat" of all forces - except in the case where you are already fighting a pursuit battle (310.32 and 310.51). Because *only* 1 round of combat is allowed, is it the case that the drone raider cannot absorb this casualty with a "retreat," but must rather score the damage by crippling a unit under (310.31)?

[EDIT] Follow up question: Does the same answer apply to the pursuers? Say the drone raiders roll a 12 and in doing so manage to score a single casualty? Must the pursuit force cripple a ship since they can't "retreat?"
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, August 09, 2010 - 01:22 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
FEAR, to expand on Ted's question a bit:

The only current downside to a drone (or fighter) raid is the Interception battle. Clearly the intent of the Interception rule was to make it *possible* to damage or destroy one or more of the raiding ships. In my opinion there should be some type of bonus given to the Intercepting ships. Now I think Ted is right and that +1 does not makes sense. Personally I think it should be +2 or maybe even +3. The Interception should be very damgerous, and something like that can help to put the risk back into the drone raids (and fighter raids). Or maybe make the plus equal to the BIR of the raid?

I don't want to clog up your area with ideas, but I just wanted to add my thouhgts to this question.
________________________________________
Oddly enough, while I think the proper ruling is that the +1 does not apply, I think from a game perspective a +1 or even a +2 or a +3 should be ret-conned into the drone raid pursuit battle.

Why?

Otherwise, drone raids are mostly toothless. Even against three FF drone raiders, a mighty force of Lyran 3*DN is likely to be at +1 maximum on ESSC, and unlikely to do more than cripple one or two ships.

Then again, a single ship drone raid that is intercepted by the same force in ESSC is likely to be completely destroyed (+4). So, there *are* some teeth left in the system indeed!

Something else to consider, I think the proper ruling to my second question above is that the drone raiders can't resolve a casualty by "retreating." That *will* effectively increase their damage.

Overall, there are GOOD reasons not to give the drone raid pursuers any bonus - but I can see the other perspective too.

So, you might want to feed this question up the chain of command after your ruling.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, August 09, 2010 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Brief comment - explained more in Discussions -

Actually, the Coalition can get better values that that - by using a Mauler and a Penal Cruiser forgoing Compot.

Each are worth +1, and so against only 2 ships, could get up to +5 against them...

Even against 3 ships, it might well get to to be on 0, and a roll of 12 would kill 2 of the raiders (a roll os 10 would cripple all 3, assuming the can't resolve 1 loss as a retreat).

In other words, if there are additional modifiers, the game needs to carefully handle them, as it might make Coalition Raiders more likely to be crippled....and Alliance Raiders much more likely to be killed

(i.e. the Coalition have three ways of getting +1 and generally, only 1 way for the Alliance to get a +1 at the moment (and they have to wait a very long time for that plus!) - ignoring captured ships!)
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 10:02 am: Edit

Chiming in to the discussions about Drone Raid interception and ESSC.

Facts:

1. Drone Raiders get their offensive compot halved during the interception battle.

2. If drone raiders are in SSC they provide a +1 modifier to the chart roll.

Before ESSC there HAD to be an adjustment to Small Scale Combat for drone raiders as quite simply and obviously halved offensive compot meant nothing on that chart. In those days things worked okay for what we had, if it was a standard battle the raiders were penalized by half of their Offensive compot, and if it went to the SSC chart they were penalized by the modifier.

In ESSC though Offensive Compot does matter, the +1 to SSC should not apply because what it was trying to correct for is intrinsic in ESSC.

Also frrom a purely legalistic standpoint the +1 applies to the SSC chart and not the ESSC chart. its use is not only inappropriate it is ill-defined in the sense that ESSC requires two rolls not one like SSC, so the +1 to Small Scale Combat while making sense in that context does not in ESSC, since one could say it applies to both rolls which is certainly not the intent but could easily be argued is the application of the letter of the rule. Not to mention that the +1 was a modifier to 1d6 roll and not a pair of 2d6 rolls as ESSC requires.

FEAR should rule I believe that the +1 modifier is inappropriate, ill-defined, and not to be used with the ESSC chart. With that said, perhaps a modification to the ESSC table of modifiers for drone raids is appropriate. I respectfully submit however that such a topic should be addressed by Chuck Strong and opened for some debate just like the original ESSC rule was then sent to SVC for approval if a change is deemed appropriate by Chuck.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 06:36 pm: Edit

A few questions on (512.39)
Is there a limit on how many ships can land on a planet in a given combat round?
If multiple ships land in a single round, does the (521.393) bonus accumulate?
Is there a limit on how many ships can land over an entire combat phase?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, August 13, 2010 - 09:46 am: Edit

Question about claiming NZ hexes:

Rule 503.622 allows a NZ hex to be captured if:
"it is occupied,or if the capturing player was the last to move a unit through it and no enemy ships are in or adjacent to the neutral zone hex."

Great. I follow that. But, what happens if the adjacent ship is a POL? Rule 531.211 states:
"Police ships cannot leave the original territory of the owning race unless they are stacked with a convoy of the same race."

To me, this means a POL cannot exert any influence on the NZ hex, since it can not react into said NZ hex. Also, I believe that this also implies that a POL cannot block or unblock supply being traced through a NZ hex. Is this a correct interpretation, or am I missing something?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, August 13, 2010 - 10:03 am: Edit

Good Question Robert. I think currently by the letter of the rule it doesn't matter a POL is a ship with some movement restrictions.. BUT I think logically and properly the POL should behave as you have suggested. It remains to be seen how SVC sees it, is a POL lurking across the NZ border enough to influence supply and/or ownership in a NZ hex that is otherwise empty?

On the Macroscape level the POL never leaves its territiry, that means I think that the POL would never move into the NZ set up shop and use it as its base of operations.. but its entirely possible this POL would foray into the NZ from time to time in the course of its duties (And honestly do you think anything would stop a Klingon POL commander from doing so?). So if that interpretation is correct, would such occasional forays be enough to influence supply and ownership of an adjacent hex?!

Probably FEAR should rule that according to Hoyle POL's are like any other ship for this purpose.. but I think this might be worthy of a SVC ruling to see what he says that a POL can do in this situation.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, August 13, 2010 - 01:01 pm: Edit

Notice to FEAR/ Staff: I have a tactical note specifically on the use of POLs to picket bases next to NZ hexes to make it harder to claim the NZ hexes.

If the ruling is to disallow POLs for this use, then this tac note should be withdrawn. Thanks.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, August 13, 2010 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Sorry for being stupid - but the following doesn't seem to follow in the new 2010 rule book -
..................................
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 - 05:32 pm: Edit


On the question of limited war and production schedules:

Limited War is considered Wartime for purposes of production restrictions; see (652.21). This includes the availability of an empire’s production schedule; also see (654.1U). For the Federation the rule (702.5) applies if the Marquis is attacked prior to turn #7 or if the Klingons do not invade after turn #6.


(702.5) SPECIAL NOTE ON EARLY WAR
If the Federation is attacked on Turn 1, 3, or 5, treat this as Turn 7 (Fall 171) for production purposes. If the Federation is attacked on Turn 2, 4, or 6, treat this as Turn 8 for production purposes. Thereafter proceed with Turns 8 (if applicable) and 9, and then to the full wartime production rates. Ships not available are replaced by basic hull type. Also applies if the Hydrans activate the Feds. CVA groups cannot be built before Turn 6. See (432.5) for the first two CVB groups. Any NCLs on the production schedule are replaced with CLs or DDs as NCLs for Turns #1 through #3.

Early war Production Schedule:
First Fall War Turn: DN, CA, 3xNCL, 3xFF (The first 3xDN’s Y168F, Y169F and Y170F are activations not new construction. They take up the SC2 build slot for those years.)
First Spring War Turn: [CVA+ECL+2xDE), CA, 3xNCL, 3xFF.
War Turn 3: Begin using Y173 Production Schedule.

Bottomline: Outside of the Federation exception above, an empire at limited war has full access to its production schedule (unless otherwise limited within the rules).

.....................................

Under 2010, 702.5 says refer to 656.0.

656.0 does not give the above production schedule (the above production schedule is from the 2K rules and is not duplicated in 2010) - and the Feds in early war have 3 production levels (3FF/3NCL 's First and Second Turns, 6FF/6NC:'s Third and Forth Turns, 12FF/10 NCL's Fifth + Turns)

So if playing with 2010 rules, is the 656 Build producition incorrect - and should we use the 702.5 production schedule, or was the production schedule totally changed for 2010?

Summary -

2000 Rules
Normal Fed Entry - 4 turns to ramp up to notional full production (i.e. 10 x NCL and 12 x FF)
Early Fed Entry - 3 turns to ramp up to notional full production

2010 Rules
Normal Fed Entry - 4 turns to ramp up to notional full production
Early Fed Entry - 5 turns to ramp up to notional full production

On the face of it, the 2000 rules seem more logical?

Thanks

Paul
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, August 13, 2010 - 05:47 pm: Edit

There is something majory disfunctional here.

Regarding 656 and 702.5. In F&E 2010 702.5 points to 656. However the online OOB has a 702.5 that explicitely defines the schedule that Chuck outlined in his response.

Is this an error in the online OOB or in 2010, or is the reference in F&E2010 only to be used when using F&E without the add ons? I say that just because typically the online items like OOB SITS and such supercede what is printed in the rulebooks, but F&E 2010 is presumably newer than the online OOB, and I have at least rolled in the F&E 2010 SITS changes into the online version of the SITS.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, August 13, 2010 - 09:47 pm: Edit

Michael,

While I would normally agree that we could assume a POL may "dip" into the NZ every so often, the problem is that the Police ship rules are *very* specific that they cannot leave their home territory unless escorting a convoy of some type, and clearly if they are doing that, they will not have the time to do things like disrupt supply in a NZ hex or contest control of a NZ hex.

Also it has been ruled in the past that if a ship or ships cannot react into a hex, then they cannot exert any influence on said hex. While something like that does not happen often, it can happen. For example, Federation Limited War and the Fed/Kzinti neutral zone. The Coalition cannot stop supply or even strategic movement in the neutral zone because they cannot react into it.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Saturday, August 14, 2010 - 01:20 am: Edit

Robert,

Respecfully I think you missed my point. The examples you gave suggest a political restriction which would preclude such things as 'dipping into' the NZ.

The restriction of a POL not leaving their home country I argue MIGHT very well mean if we look under the hood no more than during a six month turn the POL is not able to leave home territory enough to ever be considered IN a hex, yet still be able to exert influence into a hex ENOUGH to prevent claiming of the hex by a passing enemy vessel?

By the letter of the rules, I would have to say that POL's are a ship in an adjacent hex just like any other ship. As I said I believe logically what you say is true and they SHOULDN't be able to do these things, but I also believe we need SVC to say that as it would be a rules change, and I said SVC may very well rule that Adjacent POL's behave as any other ship in this instance because of the 'dipping into' idea or some other idea I haven't thought about.

So if we sit down and have a discussion I would agree with you logically, but would still say I think this is pretty clearly by the rules and FEAR should rule that by the rules POLs are an adjacent ship. I would also say I think this should be kicked up to SVC to see if he wants to make a clarification!
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, August 23, 2010 - 11:38 am: Edit

Q525.326. A Lyran player has build a second starbase in the Lyran capital. On turn X the Lyran player builds a DN and uses his normal major conversion to convert a CL to a BC. The Lyran player then wants to build a DND. Per 525.326, the Lyran player must give up the ability to build a DN or perform a major conversion, but not both. Presumably, the Lyran player may use the available second major conversion to build the DND. The question is whether the 5 EP surcharge for performing a second major conversion (433.16) must be paid when building the DND under these circumstances (for a total cost of 4+5 = 9 EP).

I would say "yes" because you are "using" the second major conversion to do something, even if it's not to convert something. However, as you are not actually *converting* anything, the rules are not clear on this issue - and hence it's quite possible to rule that the surcharge need not be paid in this case. In which case I could see Lyran players producing lots of cheap DNDs! (And attendant future increase in DNs....)


[EDIT] Let me rephrase that last. "Ruling otherwise results in a great swelling of DNs without paying the penalty cost the game designer built into the system to have the privledge for the great swelling."

I'm concerned that this idea could be a loophole to avoid paying the substantial extra cost built into the system for the Lyrans to get access to the extra heavy hulls. It's kind of like arguing that you get to have your extra cake without paying for the extra cake pan that you'd normally have to pay for.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, August 23, 2010 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Question on drone raids:

If a drone raid qualifies to use ESSC, is it required that ESSC be used? Or is a drone raid always rolled like normal non-ESSC combat?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, August 23, 2010 - 02:06 pm: Edit

To support Ted's question. 525.326

Having more than 1 SB in your Capital creates the ability to have a second (or third) major conversion - but it does not give you that second (or third) major conversion unless you also pay the 5 Ep Surcharge.

Therefore to 'give up' the major conversion, you have to be to use the major conversion, and so the 5 Ep cost is required.

So IMHO - you have to pay the Surcharge, to build a DND (and still get your primary major conversion and/or DN build).
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 05:54 am: Edit

I'd have to say that Ted is correct in that the DND conversion listed in his question costs 4 (actual conversion cost) + 5 (extra major conversion penalty). (525.326) specifically uses the word or when detailing the conditions for building this unit.
By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 06:16 am: Edit

On a side note, would a major conversion facility be able to produce a DND if no conversion was used? The same question would apply to minor facilities if the emergency cutters ever make into the game.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 09:16 am: Edit

As an interested party I would throw in for FEAR consideration

I would have to say the DND build is itself for all purposes a major conversion. So it would be subject to the extra major conversion surcharge, and as well I would think a Major Conversion Facility could build one.

If I am correct, and I might not be, but the DND is really just the Trimaran portion of the CA=>DN conversion. In essense its what needs to be built in the process of the conversion itself, therefore it is in itself a major conversion, and since a Major Conversion facility can do the CA=>DN conversion it can 'build' the DND obviously.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 10:06 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
I would have to say the DND build is itself for all purposes a major conversion. So it would be subject to the extra major conversion surcharge, and as well I would think a Major Conversion Facility could build one.
________________________________________
Well... not quite. The DND rule specifically states you can give up DN production to build it. So, theoretically on a DN production turn the DND could be built instead of the DN - and then major conversion(s) performed. Nevertheless, I'd argue from both natural reason from the rule and from game balance that, in the scenario I laid out above, producing the DND would require you to pay the 5 ep second major conversion penalty.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 10:11 am: Edit

Ted,

Ahhh correct on the DND for DN that is NOT going to cost a Major Conversion it naturally follows that building a DN neccessitates building the Trimaran portion and hence the DND for DN is just building part of a DN and hence why the substitution makes sense.

So I would ammend "is itself for all purposes but substitutions from a larger hull a major conversion"
By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 03:48 pm: Edit

FEAR, I need a ruling. The relevant sections are: 205.32 and 205.11

the situation is this: a lyran stack moves onto BATS 0515 on its fifth movement pulse (from the north). there are hydran ships on 0716 that would like to be on 0515 to help defend, but do not wish an engagement in the open hex in 0615- which the lyrans would certainly precipitate if the hydrans did a normal extended reaction on pulse 5. The question is whether a _stationary_ sixth pulse on 0515 would permit a "double reaction".

if the lyrans had arrived at 0515 on the sixth pulse it would be clearly possible, and if they had entered on the fourth pulse, it would be impossible (as the lyrans would do the hokey-pokey into 0615 and return to 0515 on pulse six, foiling the extended reaction).
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Chris - not a FEAR rulling - but if the 5th inpulse can be reacted to - so can the 6th - the only time when you would lose a double reaction is if you declare a stationary pulse after moving away from the enemy force (so 4th move next to, 5th move away, 6th stationary - I beleive no reaction would be possible!).
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 06:45 pm: Edit

There was a clarification about this.. not this specifically but it encompasses this. It was ruled that if the last movement that was actually moving from hex to hex was AWAY then any subsequent pulses in place were NOT reactable.

The clarification being that they were not reactable because of the moving away. Since that part had to be clarified thusly I think its safe to say if the last hex of movement was not away then the pulses are indeed reactable.

This may help you search for the ruling... I know I am going to mess this up, but I am almost certain the ruling came down about 6 months ago by SVC or Chuck Strong.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 08:35 pm: Edit

Note that (205.32) allows the double hex reaction on the sixth (or last) pulse of movement...so it's react one hex and hope or leave it...
By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 05:43 am: Edit

Back to the DND, if one would give up rhe DN build, could you sub the allowed CA/CC and still build the DND? If no 5+ conversion is made the 2nd DND can be built at the 4ep rate? If a second SB is in the shipyard hex, the 3rd DND could be built at a cost of 9ep(4ep DND + 5ep surcharge),right? And if a Major Conversion Facility has been built but not used this turn then a 4th DND could be built at 4ep. This may not be the best use of resources, but illustrates a possible maximum build rate for DNDs.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 09:38 am: Edit

Questions Downloaded to this point (46 pages of them)
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 11:15 am: Edit

I am going to post the Q&A as I do it in segments that I send to SVC. If you don't see your question answered, wait until I am done to complain that your question has not been answered.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 11:17 am: Edit

Q323.14 If you have an X-ship, you get a +1. If you are facing an X-ship, you get a -1. Ok, so far so good, they would cancel out right? But then there is the additional line ignores this modifier if condition applies to both sides".

Well, that means if both sides have an X-ship, then the modifier is ignored, meaning neither side gets a -1. But that line is not included with the +1 modifier -- so if both sides have an X-ship, *both* sides get a +1.

So, if you have a 9pt ship vs. a 9 pt ship, its equal and no bonuses, but if you have a 9pt X-ship vs. a 9 pt X-ship, then both sides gets a +1 and it's potentially more deadly.

Am I reading that right?

A323.14 Yes, X-ships are deadly, even to each other.

Q323.14 "Each side selects one of their units, then compares them to each other." Then it lists that if the defense factor is 2-4 points, put a -1 to the smaller side, if it's 5 points or more, apply a -2 to the smaller side. Those two lines are listed separately, so theoretically both can apply (I think).

So, if I have two war cruisers (7 compot each) vs. a 5-point frigate and a pair of fighters, then I would compare the war cruiser to the frigate and then the war cruiser to the pair of fighters, and get a -1 and a -2, applied both to the smaller side?

And this is on top of the -4 that side already gets for being outgunned 7 to 14?

Or... can the 'unit selected' be the same one for each comparison, and thus the first comparison would be a war cruiser vs. the frigate, and then the 2nd comparison would be the same war cruiser vs. the same frigate, (which doesn't qualify for the -2), and thus the only modifier is the -1 (and the basic -4)?

A323.14 Only one of these apply and it is the worst modifier and it only applies to one comparison. In your example you would compare the frigate and the war cruiser one time. This will result in a -1 modifier.

Q323.51 If a side in ESSC chooses to retreat as a casualty resolution (323.32), can the other side opt to pursue (thus creating a pursuit round of ESSC?)

A323.51 Yes, and if ESSC qualifies you do another round.

Q539.7 What is the rate on substitution and conversion per turn/year for the Theater Transport (FFT/DWT)?

A539.7 This is clear that you are allowed to substitute or convert as needed. This puts no limit on the player.

Q508.22: WHEN exactly is a planet considered captured? Immediately upon satisfying the conditions of 508.22 or only after the entire combat phase is over? I'd say "immediately" because the rules do not call out any provisos (like, "wait till the end of combat.") Why it's important: Say the Coalition attacks Kzinti SB 902, planet 1001, and all border BATS. During the combat phase the Coalition "captures" planet 1001 first and then destroys all border BATS *EXCEPT* for 701 - and then elects to resolve 902 (which also has a defending Kzinti fleet) before 701. After a brutal battle, the Kzinti retreat from 902. If 1001 *stops* being a Kzinti supply point immediately upon capture, then the Kzinti must retreat to 801. If 1001 stops being a Kzinti supply point only at the end of the combat phase, then the Kzinti fleet at 902 may and must retreat to 1001 (assuming the Kzinti are not outnumbered at 1001).

A508.22 The planet ceases being in the control of the previous owner immediately when there are no units belonging to that player in the hex and the capturing player has sufficient units to capture/liberate the planet in the hex. This is why selection of when you do certain battles during the battle resolution in phase 5.

Q520.42 When an SAF destroys a PDU, are the PDUs fighters counted in the destruction, or are they now homeless fighters? So if there is nowhere for them to land, they are now minus points?

A520.42 Yes, the fighters become homeless and must either find another home or become minus points per 501.42.

Q308.25 If the entire battle line is destroyed do plus points carry over to the next round?
A308.25 Yes, but only for that system. See also, 302.63

Q317.2 Is there a limit on the EW generated by PDUs? So 16 generate 16 EW?

A317.2 Yes, maximum of 4 points of EW.

Q520.42 Lets say I destroy 6 PDUs in 1 round, got lucky on the SAF roll, he now has 30 minus points. The entire next round all I can do is remove those minus points. Can I still make an SAF attack to destroy more PDUs and the SAF ignores the minus points?

A520.42 Yes, the SAF attack ignores the minus points and just affects the PDUs.

Q434.0 I seem to recall questions that -mothballed ships get a discount on conversion (like conversion during repair), but I am unable to find the rule. Does it actually exist?

A434.0 No, but you are allowed to convert mothball ships before they are activated, but it is at full cost.

Q541.34D I am also confused about engineer units functioning as SAFs. 541.34D includes the passage "if it survives the attack...". it is categorically impossible for a SAF to survive making its special attack, is it not?

R541.34D The “if it survives the attack” refers to damage applied during that combat round. So, if your opponent does not direct on the Engineer unit then it survives the attack. This is unlike the SAF which is eliminated as part of its attack.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Q317.4 The Hydran 4xPGS that start in the Old Colonies Squadron. They are organized with this fleet by the OOB charts, however they are mentioned with rules reference to 317.4 and 709.1B

317.4 states ...The Hydrans have four of these ships in the off-map area. Three of which can be brought onto the map (one per turn) starting with Turn #1. or any later turn at the Hydran players option the fourth PGS cannot be brought onto the map until it is converted into a PFT...

709.1B just talks about the free Pegasus ships I can start building when the old colonies shipyard comes active.

This rule specifically states that I can bring them onto the map one per turn starting turn #1... However the fleet they are organized under says it cannot enter the map unless conditions are met? Which rule has precedence as being more specific? Both seem pretty dang specific to me, the 317.4 specifies the PGS class (it was introduced to the game with this rule) but the note on the Old Colonies squadron is specific to that fleet of which the PGS are clearly members?

R317.4 The four Pegasus and the resulting new construction are separate from the restrictions on the Old Colonies Squadron limitations.

Q703.0 The D7N and D5N are assigned to the Home Fleet on the current OOB. The Home Fleet is not released until turn four. So the Klingons cannot use their diplomats for the first three turns. They can buy one, but they can't afford it with all the other things they need the first three turns. Since other diplomats are available on turn one, those Klingon ships shouldn't be assigned to the Home Fleet, but should be listed under "General Units".

Unless it's intentional that my Klingons don't know what diplomacy is for the first three turns? (Why would they have dedicated diplomatic ships?)

Did I miss something?

A703.0 This is clarified in F&E 2010. (600.35) "Diplomatic teams (including Klingon diplomatic cruisers) and small transports carrying diplomatic teams are always released and can go about their business (540.0)". (540.0) allows empires at Peace to use diplomatic teams.

Q540.24 A diplomatically aligned Neutral Planet Generates EP’s but is not connected to adjacent grids and is in its own partial grid until such time you are at war with the other neighboring power. They accumulate EP's which may be used to locally construct defenses and/or accumulate.
May one use Orion Smuggling to transfer EP's to the planet to augment its indigenous EP's for construction projects?

A540.24 Sure, if you have them per (410.34). You would have to obey all rules concerning the use of EP’s for your Empire at that time based on your economic condition. If you are at Peace you could cancel PWC or use other diplomatic income to do this. Or, if you were at war but this was an inactive fleet from the general treasury at the local Orion’s rate of exchange.
The local planet would not allow you to pull such income via the Orions as they know it would just make their situation more untenable.

Q424.35: When using Depot Level Repair to repair crippled ships is it one ship total per turn or up to one ship per depot track per turn?

R424.35: One crippled ship per turn is allowed to be placed in one of the holding boxes for the Depot Level Repair. Not one ship per holding box in the depot.

Q302.773 (F&E 2010) Regarding a chain of fighting retreats, does the old ruling still apply regarding automatic destruction of the retreating fleet after 3 successive fighting retreats? The new rules don't specify one way or another.

R302.773 This is a SVC ruling from Origins to prevent squirrelly retreats from killing multiple ships over a large area. As such, it still stands unless withdrawn by SVC himself.

R318.11 Kzinti fast drone bonus applies to Small Scale combat (310) if it qualifies under (318.11).

Q425.1 Can an allied Empire build a PRD at an allies planet?

A425.1 The only restriction is that there can only be one PRD at that planet. It should be noted that any repairs done by this PRD has no connection to the allied strategic movement grid and would not be eligible for free strategic movement.

the Lyrans build a PRD at the Klingon capital? Additionally, the Lyrans have a BATS there. I see nothing that says they can not.

Thanks

Q503.62 Is it possible to remove your enemies ownership, and not claim it yourself - even if enemy ships are adjacent to the hex?

A503.62 If your opponent cannot establish ownership by this rule then the hex is not counted. If you have ships adjacent to the hex then they cannot claim it. Once war is declared the neutral zone hexes are no longer “neutral” just unclaimed income waiting for one side or the other to establish the requirements for claiming the income.

Q519.43: (519.43) Tugs and LTTs can move monitor pallets between supply grids.

Can a D5G or DWG move a monitor pallet between supply grids in a manner similar to theater transports being able to move tug pods from one supply grid to another?

A519.43: Yes, the D5G or the DWG can do this.

Q519.23 This rule states that a monitor can be captured and then subsequently repaired and converted to the capturing empire's technology.

If the monitor is captured with a combat pallet, i.e. SCS pallet, is the pallet also repaired and converted?

R519.23 Rule (519.4) discusses pallets and likens them to Tug pods. For direction on this (305.44) says a captured Tug’s pods are so damaged as to be unusable. So, a captured Monitor’s pallet would be unusable.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Forgot one set...

Q521.39 Is there a limit on how many ships can land on a planet in a given combat round?

A521.39 Just a limit on the number of ships that can land on a planet. They would have to survive the combat round before landing.

Q521.393 If multiple ships land in a single round, does the (521.393) bonus accumulate?

A521.393 No, this bonus is for the “G”s that come from that specific ship only.

Q521.39 Is there a limit on how many ships can land over an entire combat phase?

A521.39 Just a limit on the number of ships that can land on a planet. They would have to survive the combat round before landing.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 08:35 pm: Edit

Mike, on 508.22, retreat priority 3C would allow the Kzinti to retreat to 1002 as it is in the main supply while 801 would be to a partial grid (as emeny forces are still in 902)...
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 09:36 pm: Edit

Mike,

I'd like to challenge a ruling. In the following ruling you imply that formerly neutral planets that have joined an empire provide Diplomatic Income;
Q540.24 A diplomatically aligned Neutral Planet Generates EP’s but is not connected to adjacent grids and is in its own partial grid until such time you are at war with the other neighboring power. They accumulate EP's which may be used to locally construct defenses and/or accumulate.
May one use Orion Smuggling to transfer EP's to the planet to augment its indigenous EP's for construction projects?

A540.24 Sure, if you have them per (410.34). You would have to obey all rules concerning the use of EP’s for your Empire at that time based on your economic condition. If you are at Peace you could cancel PWC or use other diplomatic income to do this. Or, if you were at war but this was an inactive fleet from the general treasury at the local Orion’s rate of exchange.
The local planet would not allow you to pull such income via the Orions as they know it would just make their situation more untenable.


Planets do not provide Diplomatic Income. They provide income as any other planet does. Rule (540.251) states that a planet produces income for the gaining race, but this is planetary income like any other planet in an Empire's economy. The only rules stating that income gained from Diplomacy may be used in peacetime are (540.22) Allies and (540.23) Trade. It is not a part of the general rules (540.0) or (540.2) and it does not say under (540.25) Neutral Planets or the sub rule (540.251) that income under that rules section may be used in peace time. The rules allowing income from diplomacy are specific to (540.22) and (540.23) and do not affect rule (540.25).

Because of that I don't believe that you can use Orion Smuggling to gain any of the Planetary Income from rule (540.25) when at peace. That income goes to the general treasury like any other planet in your Empire and your Government Overlords do not give it to their military commanders to abuse. Please re-evaluate the portion of your ruling that allows an Empire to gain income from a formerly Neutral planet while at peace.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, August 27, 2010 - 09:12 am: Edit

Daniel,

Mike C didn't say planetary income was diplomatic income. This was in answer to one of MY questions. And the issue was.

Could you use Orion Smuggling to send Diplomatic income to a Diplomatically aligned NZ planet to augment the intrinsic income there in order to build defenses.

By rule NZ planets do accumulate the planatery income they generate and can spend it to buy extra defenses. I asked could one take other diplomatic income you might have and send it to the NZ planet via Orion Smuggling to add to that. Mike C pointed out you could, or you could cancel PWC to get income to send, or if you were at limited war/war you could use general treasury funds.

He specifically then shut down my other questions about could I use Orion Smuggling to take ep off the NZ planet when he said
________________________________________
Quote:
The local planet would not allow you to pull such income via the Orions as they know it would just make their situation more untenable.
________________________________________
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, August 27, 2010 - 06:20 pm: Edit

Q(320.342) Defending fighters and PFs cannot be used to absorb the losses from a drone raid attack as the drones target the ship or base in question, but they could be used to absorb the damage of a fighter-PF attack. However, the rule does not specify which fighters or PFs might be considered "defending." Example: I have an FRD in the hex. The FRD is the target of the attack. I have 100 fighters in the hex, any of which could protect the FRD. Can I take the casualties on these fighters, or would the fighters have to be "associated with" the FRD somehow (like it has a couple of fighter modules). C.f. (320.34).


As an aside, this is yet another example of how special raids are totally broken. The idea that a dozen fighters or a bunch of drones can "sneak" into a heavily defended (100+ ships) FRD park and kill an FRD (or any other extraordinarily valuable asset that will be heavily guarded) is simply ludicrous.

Suggest that Joe Stevenson's proposed new drone/fighter raid rules be considered for replacing the current special raid rules.

Or something.

Anything.

>8(
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, August 28, 2010 - 12:56 pm: Edit

Question regarding Hydran initial deployment in "The Wind" scenario.

I could swear that the 2000 rules set explicitly stated that the Hydrans set up at the start of turn 3 - Alliance. (Unfortunately, I tossed my 2K rulebook, so I can't confirm this.) The 2010 rules, specifically , make no mention of this, and simply say "The Hydrans in this period need not even have their counters placed on the map."

When do the Hydrans initially deploy their forces? Does "this period" refer to turns 1 and 2, when they cannot accumulate EPs, conduct overbuilds, etc (i.e. Hydrans set up at the start of 3-Coalition), or does it refer to the entire period before the Hydrans actually attack the Klingons or Lyrans (i.e. Hydrans set of at the start of 3-A)?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, August 28, 2010 - 02:39 pm: Edit

Michale Parker,

I'm challenging that as well. After a conversation with Chuck Strong at Origins, I do not believe that was ever the intent of the rule. Planetary income from neutral planets is planetary income and goes into the general treasury. It does not count as a separate supply grid. It is in a separate strategic movement grid specifically to prevent you from using the new planet as a stat node until you would be able to use it as one if you had to conquer it (to prevent game balance issues). The intent of the rule was never to create a separate supply grid and the rule does not support that interpretation.

As for moving EPs or PDUs to a formerly neutral planet, you could easily and legally use blockade running to get to the planet as it is well within range of your grid so you would never need to look for unusual rules like Orion Smuggling to send them EPs. Ships in your Home Fleet can be assigned to the raid pool normally so a Home Fleet Tug or better yet an FFT will do the job you want cheaper by Blockade Running a PDU out to the planet.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Saturday, August 28, 2010 - 11:19 pm: Edit

Daniel,

I also disagreed with the ruling of diplomatically aligned planets forming their own partial grid. However, the rules as written certainly can support that interpretation.

Also you are prohibited from sending ships to those NZ planets, so blockade running there to drop off PDU's or anything is not allowed.

I fully support appealing the previous ruling to see what Chuck Strong of SVC might say on the matter. I would also point out if its ruled that diplomatically aligned planets do not form a partial grid, then there is a HUGE problem with calling their income planetary income but I will leave that argument if/when a ruling is made needing it to be argued.
By William Stec (Billstec2) on Sunday, August 29, 2010 - 03:59 pm: Edit

Question about the Demon of the Eastern Wind scenario if anyone happens to know the answer:

We are on T4, and the Federation is starting Limited war to support the Gorns.

The scenario rules say that the Feds go to limited war and can send the 5th+2nd Fleets to support the Gorns (plus new construction), BUT that they keep the published production schedule and do not use the "early war" production schedule (I believe this means the one used if the Expedition were to activate the Feds).

But under the Limited War rules (item U), it says that the Feds could ignore the PWC schedule and build whatever it wants within the defined production schedule.

The issue here is that the schedule isn't defined, since the scenario says to not use the early war schedule, and there is no other schedule that I can see that would apply. So I don't see how item U applies per se.

And the Feds cannot use overproduction since they aren't at full war either. So the only thing that makes sense to me is that they only build the listed PWC until the Klingons attack on T7/T8/whatever. But they'd have the EPs from being on Limited War to conduct repairs/send EPs to the Gorns/repair Gorn ships, etc.

If anyone else has got an official answer, it'd be appreciated.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, August 29, 2010 - 05:28 pm: Edit

Any official resolution on the Kzinti Marquis Zone issue from a few pages up?

i.e. can the Coalition attack BATS 1805 without activating the Feds, and leave ships in hexes 1805 or 1705 to contest the province without activating the Feds?

I'll point out (again) that I understand what folks seem to think the intention of rule (601.12) is (i.e. that the Coalition can freely enter hexes 1705 and 1805), but as written, the rule doesn't actually say what people seem to think it says. And if the intention is that the rule lets the Coalition do that, it needs to be errataed to say "If a Coalition unit enters the Marquis Fleet set up area..." instead of "If a Coalition unit enters either of the two Kzinti provinces adjacent to the Federation neutral zone..." as it currently does.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 02:49 pm: Edit

September - October 2010 Archive

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 01:34 pm: Edit

Q521.39 Is there a limit on how many ships can land on a planet in a given combat round?

A521.39 Just a limit on the number of ships that can land on a planet. They would have to survive the combat round before landing.

Q521.393 If multiple ships land in a single round, does the (521.393) bonus accumulate?

A521.393 No, this bonus is for the “G”s that come from that specific ship only.

Q521.39 Is there a limit on how many ships can land over an entire combat phase?

A521.39 Just a limit on the number of ships that can land on a planet. They would have to survive the combat round before landing.

Appeal sent to FERTS on Penal ships and minus points in pursuit.

Q431.74 Can free fighter factors be used in secondary supply grids? (The offmap grid specifically. The race does still hold its shipyard.)

A431.74 No, the free fighters are available only in the capital shipyard supply grid.

Q302.723 Hex 1401 is held by the Coalition. Klingon and Lyran ships are present. No non-ship units are present. The Kzinti attack the hex. Several crippled Klingon ships are present in the hex. At the end of the first round of combat (approach was declined), the Coalition decided to perform a Partial Retreat (302.723). The flagship for the Coalition on the first round was Lyran. The Coalition partial retreated only a few crippled Klingon ships. The closest hex to Klingon supply is 1402 (planet 1504 closest Klingon supply point). The closest hex to Lyran supply is 1302 (planet 1202 closest Lyran supply point). For reference 1502 is Kzinti controlled.

Where can the Klingon ships retreat to? Rule 302.76 says that the retreat priorities of the race that provided the flagship must be used. However 302.761 allows allied forces to retreat separately, but in this case it's only the Klingons doing a retreat not the Lyrans. 302.761 also states that if that option is used then all units of a given empire must retreat together. So would all Klingon ships have to retreat from the hex IF they selected 1402 (only selectable if 302.761 is invoked) instead of 1302 (required if 302.761 is not invoked)?

A302.723 This rule is modified by the more specific rule of (302.761) and the Klingons in this case would retreat to 1402.

Q521.0 What, if any, legal targets for ground attacks exist, other than SBs, PDUs, and their respective smaller cousins?

A521.0 (521.1) is very specific that “ground combat actions” are used to attack PDUs, bases, and capturing enemy ships.

Q709.0 I just started playing F&E with a friend. While I've had the game and all the modules for over 18 years I've never played other than solo games. Anyway, when the Hydrans attack on turn three, 601.162 states that the Hydrans are at a wartime economy to determine economic exhaustion. It also states that they receive their scheduled PWC, but cannot build other ships. That is pretty clear to me, but on the Hydran order of battle there is no PWC. I had assumed that the PWC was the ships listed for turns 1 and 2 on the construction schedule (709.1), but the guy I'm playing says that since these ships are not specified as PWC that I don't get them. I was hoping to confirm this. Thank you for your time.

A709.0 The ships listed for turns 1 &2 are the allowed PWC for the Hydrans.

Q509.1-F Can allied tugs carry allied FRDs?

A509.1-F Yes, it is just a big mass that needs a Tug to move.

Q502.11 When there is a PP on a SB to represent PFs, does that mean 3/6/or 12 PFs? Same with a P on a PDU is that 3 or 6 PFs?

A502.11 Each “P” is 6 PFs on the unit for 12 factors. A PDU has 1/2P and has 6 PFs.

Q515.26 Per 515.261: "Unescorted carrier tugs count as two ships for command rating purposes."

Also per 515.26: "Tugs with carrier pods or SCS pods do not require escorts, but can be escorted." This statement seems to imply that CV tugs are Single Ship Carriers.

Pursuit rule (307.22) states: "Carriers with missing escorts count as the original number of ships in the pursuit force, but as the actual number of ships for die roll purposes."

Question: If I include a CV tug in a pursuit force (6 ships maximum), does the CV tug count as two ships in this force? I'm thinking that it does not, since an unescorted CV tug only counts as two ships for command purposes, and there was never a missing escort to count against the pursuit force.

A515.26 (515.261) is more specific than (515.26) and as such any Tug with CV pods requires either an escort or an open slot when it comes to filling out the battle force.

Q205.76 If a base's fighters/PFs react out to another battle, and another unit's fighters/PFs react into the hex, can the reacting attrition units land in the now empty hangars of the original base and contribute to the battle at full strength?

For example, the fighters on Klingon Bats 2218 react out to help in a battle in 2119. The Hydrans attack 2218; the fighters from 2318 react into 2218. Can six of these fighters base on 2218 to add to the compot of the battle force, or must they be independent?

A205.76 A fighter squadron must return to its home base after each combat round to refuel and rearm. If that base is destroyed then they are considered homeless after the first round and must find a home (302.53) or be resolved as “minus points” per (308.2).

Q511.571 In a capital assault on a "single capital system", like the Gorn Capital, is the fleet present in the system obligated to form a battle force to defend the minor planet, or can it decline by (511.571) as long as it is not conflicting with (511.553) and wait for enemy at the capital, allowing the enemy to devastate the minor and destroying the PDUs without having to risk the fleet?

A511.571 Yes, you can do this. Per (511.571) you do not have to include any ships as long as there are fixed defenses and un-devastated planets in that system. This will allow you to preserve your force for the main battle at another planet in that system if you wish.

Q207.292 Is it the case that at any time the tug (or other transport) either picks up OR drops off EPs in a transfer that it can then immediately move back to the off-map area in the same turn? What about the case, for example, if the Kzinti capital is off-map? If a tug delivers EPs to the Kzinti off-map capital, can it then transfer immediately back to the Federation off-map area in the same turn? Or what happens if an on map tug delivers EPs to the off-map Kzinti capital? Can that tug then immediately move back on-map and back to the Federation capital in the same turn?

R207.292 A Tug can do one move either in and out or within the off-map area per turn, but no double move within the off map area per turn.

Q304.41 Rule 304.41 states: "If one player has only units that cannot retreat (for example: a base, PDU, FRD, and/or convoy; even those with fighters/PFs) or must use slow retreat (e.g., convoys, towed FRDs), the other player selects both of the numbers (1-4) for the BIR. Variable intensity can still be used."

Does this mean that in Slow Unit Retreat (302.742) if there are only retreating Slow Units, that the Pursuer gets to pick both BIRs? 302.742 makes no mention of Battle Intensity nor do the rules in 307.0 (Pursuit). At the very least I would expect to see in 307.42 (Special Cases) this mentioned if the retreating force consists solely of Slow Units.

A304.41 Yes, this is correct.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 02:10 pm: Edit

A502.11 Each “P” is 6 PFs on the unit for 12 factors. A PDU has 1/2P and has 6 PFs.

You mean a PDU has 1/2P and has 3 PFs/6 combat factors.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 02:43 pm: Edit

"You mean a PDU has 1/2P and has 3 PFs/6 combat factors."

Yes, sorry it was not clear. A BTN has 1/2P on the counter. A RGT has a P on the counter.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Good catch, fixed. Thank you! M.Curtis
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Good catch, fixed. Thank you! M.Curtis
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, September 09, 2010 - 09:00 am: Edit

Bill your answer is in the Q&A August 10 Archive group.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 - 05:32 pm: Edit

Note that the 2010 rules do a lot better job of defining the limited war rules, including a separate rule for Fed Early War to include early limited war.

edit:

Don't forget you can activate 1 CL and 1 FF per turn of limited war from mothballs.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, September 10, 2010 - 10:21 am: Edit

Q601.2 When *exactly* do the Hydrans setup in the General War scenario? Obviously, in view of 601.162, they setup on Turn #3. However, do they setup during the Coalition phase at the top of turn 3, or just before the Alliance turn at the bottom of turn 3. The reason why this question is important is because of the expedition. At least with the expanded rules, stopping the expedition is difficult in the latter case because the Hydran player may observe Coalition deployments and then setup his fleets to maximize the chances of success of the expedition. As a result, the Coalition player must deploy an extraordinary number of ships in order to block every single possible path the Hydrans could take. As an aside, I have always played this way, but it seems to me that perhaps I have been playing wrongly as the rule is not clear. If the Hydrans have to setup at the *beginning* of turn 3, then it is easier for the Coalition to match the Hydran deployment during CT3. Ruling, please, thanks.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, September 10, 2010 - 10:30 am: Edit

Q601.2 When *exactly* do the Hydrans setup in the General War scenario? Obviously, in view of 601.162, they setup on Turn #3. However, do they setup during the Coalition phase at the top of turn 3, or just before the Alliance turn at the bottom of turn 3. The reason why this question is important is because of the expedition. At least with the expanded rules, stopping the expedition is difficult in the latter case because the Hydran player may observe Coalition deployments and then setup his fleets to maximize the chances of success of the expedition. As a result, the Coalition player must deploy an extraordinary number of ships in order to block every single possible path the Hydrans could take. As an aside, I have always played this way, but it seems to me that perhaps I have been playing wrongly as the rule is not clear. If the Hydrans have to setup at the *beginning* of turn 3, then it is easier for the Coalition to match the Hydran deployment during CT3.

R601.2 The Hydrans, per (601.162) are not required to have their forces on map for both turns 1 and 2. So, they setup before their turn 3. Yes, this does allow them to take advantage of any weakness in the Coalition forces deployed. The Coalition players need to be careful of what the possibilities are for the Hydrans.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, September 10, 2010 - 10:31 am: Edit

Ted... Don't I hear a baby crying... Go tend to her and stop posting questions!

Great looking baby BTW, congrats!
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, September 10, 2010 - 10:40 am: Edit

Mike, thanks. =) She's not crying right now. She's fallen asleep nursing, and momma is also sleeping. Quite a sight! =) (I'm working at home ATM).

That gives me time to harass you!

And thanks for the quick ruling on the Hydrans!
By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 12:41 am: Edit

i challenge a ruling. the note in 601.15 suggests that delaying hydran set-up is to expedite the start of the game, and is not intended as a "mechanic" shaping game-play. the phrase "is not actually necessary" implies immateriality, which is completely at odds with the ruling as it stands.

moreover, the abeyance is only effective "during turns 1 and 2" (601.162).
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 09:16 am: Edit

In Amicus to support the ruling on Hydran setup.

I believe delaying setup of the Federation Romulan Gorn and Tholians is most certainly done to expedite the start of the game. The Hydrans however are specifically allowed not to set up for turns 1 and 2.

601.15 does state the players may voluntarily set up all forces at the beginning if you wish.. the Hydrans are not in this place specifically omitted. This section is written to suggest that delaying setup is very much for the purposes of getting on with the game.

In the games I have played, what occurs is when things start heating up in a Theatre where an unsetup empire is present, then one merely says "While I am taking my turn (or before I take) would you please setup (whomever)" This is how I believe the game is intended.

Now however we get to the Hydrans... apart from 601.15 is a rule that is specific too the Hydrans themselves.
________________________________________
Quote:
(601.162) Hydrans on Turns #1 and #2 are at wartime economy... ...The Hydrans in the period need not even have their counters placed on the map
________________________________________


Rule 601.162 places a specific exception for the Hydrans for actually quite a few things but amongst them is the Initial Setup of their forces.

Whatever the intention of 601.15 is (and I would grant its to speed up setup) the rule itself and by logical progression its intention is specifically overruled by 601.162 in every particular.

This ruling is NOT at odds with 601.15 as has been claimed in the challenge, as that rule has no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand.

As to the abeyance being only effective during turns 1 and 2.. that is rather the rub isn't it. Are the Hydrans compelled to setup before the coalition portion of turn 3, or do they setup before the Alliance portion of turn 3. The ruling when it was made correctly spoke on this issue, and clarified that it was before the Alliance portion of turn 3 which I might add supports how things have traditionally been done for well decades.

In short, for Chuck Strong when he considers this challenge, I am firmly convinced that 601.15 is a specious point to challenge the ruling on... if there is a contention it is the meaning and intention behind Turn #1 and #2 in the text of 601.162.. I submit as written the rule is somewhat vague, it could be interpreted as meaning one sets up as soon as turn 3 starts (which would mean right before the Coalition Turn 3 starts) or it could likewise mean you setup on turn 3 when its your turn (Alliance Turn 3).

I believe FEAR is empowered to make such clarifications of the rules as was done in this case, I further support his ruling as supportive of the way the game has been interpreted since I started to play in the late 1980's not that tradition should be the measure of the truth, but it is a good item to rely upon when the rules lend themselves to multiple interpretations with reasonable arguments on both sides.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 10:45 am: Edit

Deleted by Author. Irrelevant Question
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, September 19, 2010 - 10:05 am: Edit

(320.511) A legal unit performing a blockade run must have a friendly or neutral hex as its target when performing this type of raid. Does the presence of friendly ships in enemy territory meet the requirement of making the hex a valid target?

Reasoning this would be the case. Any tug using missions U or V or transferring personell i.e. an Admiral (316.0) or Diplomat (540.0). U and V would have to make such a hex valid target under (537.6).
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Question on Tugs setting up Colonies.
If a colony is being established in a captured province, does the tug performing the mission count as the province Garrison?
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Q430.22 If a colony is being established in a captured province, does the tug performing the mission count as the province Garrison?

R430.22 If the Tug is performing any mission other than A,B,G,L,M,N,P,Q,R, or S it cannot be counted towards either planetary or provincial garrison.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, September 24, 2010 - 08:12 pm: Edit

Past Ruling Precedence:

Slow units with standard speed ships has been ruled upon in the past. Just as a reminder however -- slow units assigned standard speed escorts are treated slow GROUPS and therefore are included in slow unit retreats as a slow group. As always, escorts can be dropped (but not added) per rule (see SoP) prior to retreat battle.
By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Sunday, October 03, 2010 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Request for clarification of many multi part rulings.
Issue [unlimited] Klingon CVT production.
Vastly simplified, Klingon carrier production limit is one true CV plus one CVE per turn. There is a cap on the number of CV pods that can exist at any one time.
Previous rulings say that:
- CVT production is not counted against a turn's carrier limits.
- Pods on CVT do not count against the carrier pod limit.

Logical but ridiculous conclusion is that CVT production on any one single turn is limited by two factors only; the number of TGA hulls available and the number of EPs available to spend.
On the first turn every TGA could become a CVT. Not much else would be built but that is a tactical issue not a rules one.

This tactical issue could arise if no Romulan carriers along with no k+l mauler options are picked in conjunction with each other or a non-historical campaign is being played
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, October 03, 2010 - 03:42 pm: Edit

To add to Jason question.

This rule allows the Klingons to build one more Carrier a turn than anyone else can do (by replacing the Pods 'lost' each turn).

However, I don't think that is why this possible 'loophole' has been created as original Tug's where of very limited construction, the Klingons would be unable to use this very often - 1 tug a year and it had to do everything.

However, CO added LTT's and SO added Theatre Tugs - therefore Tugs are no longer in as limited supply.

I would therefore suggest the intention of the rule has been massively altered with the add on rule packs.

I would have thought limiting CVT productions to say replace lost CVT's and a total of 3 (3 pod sets available) new CVT's would maintain the original rule, without providng the Klingons with a huge loophole in Carrier productions.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, October 03, 2010 - 11:15 pm: Edit

Notes:
Carrers: (703.4) Allows 2 carriers plus FV (/EV)
Tugs: (703.3) Allows one TGA/B per year (sub or conv)
Pods: Allowed 3 sets VP2/3 plus 3 at start CVT [AO: CVTs do not count against pod limit]

Question should be whether Klingons have CVT limit or whether CVT+pods is limit (ie 6)...
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, October 04, 2010 - 12:24 am: Edit

The CVT issue is much ado about nothing.

Of course the Klingons can make as many CVT's as they have Tugs and pods. CVT production from tugs and pods does not count against CV limits, and they are limited by the number of Tugs and pods available. Tugs and pods have their own limits that will set limits on the number of CVT's. Look at the OOB for the number of starting tugs, plus one per year and one can come up with the number easily.

If your goal is to get extra CV's then you are already building the 2 allowed CV's per turn.. and likely the FV also but I will not force that. So you can build an extra 3 CVT's turn 1 then 1 CVT per turn (since you can only replace one set of pods per turn) till you run out of Tugs.

Do folks really think this is abusive.. I MIGHT be tempted to bribe my opponent to be so abusive!
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, October 04, 2010 - 07:47 am: Edit

Michael

Reply in Discussions to avoid cluttering up this topic.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, October 04, 2010 - 06:33 pm: Edit

I should have made that clear. My comments were meant to lend support towards FEAR and those above NOT making any change to the way the CVT is handled. Since folks were making statements hinting towards wanting a rules change I was posting evidence against any change.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, October 06, 2010 - 06:38 am: Edit

Copied from the MSIT thread:
________________________________________
Quote:
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, August 08, 2010 - 06:58 pm: Edit


F&E 2010 (509.314) Carrier pods do not count against the carrier production limit.

That's for building the pods.

While no rule that I can find says this I believe that the permanant conversion of a TGA+ VP2/3 to a CVT would count against carrier production limits. This is due to the training requirements of being a full time carrier.

Also I could find much more useful things to do with the one tug per year that I can build.

________________________________________


I would agree that the permanant welding of the pods to the Tug would count against the production limits of medium carriers.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 06, 2010 - 11:14 am: Edit

I cannot find the ruling that I thought was there that says Tug+Pods to CVT does not count as a CV build. It could be one of those cases where I confused the clarification that the CV pods do not count.

So its very possible I was mistaken on this issue with the CVT production not counting against medium CV limits
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, October 07, 2010 - 06:39 pm: Edit

Mike C.

Previous FEAR rulings have stipulated that when one engages in fighting retreat it is all handled under the retreat portion of the SOP, the upside of this being that once a FR is started one continues resolving the FR battles immediatly until the FR is resolved. I asked and it was confirmed that this does indeed trump the attackers perogative to chose the order of the battle resolution as it was claimed at the time that the fighting retreat was all part of the retreat process.

My opponent in a current game disagrees since no clarification was made in the 2010 ruleset for fighting retreat. We have resolved this with a gentleman's agreements. I have no dog in this hunt as it were I only wish to know how this is supposed to be done.

I have been for the past several years been requiring that fighting retreats be resolved until they end (either retreat to a place where there is no fight, retreat to a place under normal retreat even if there is a fight, several base unit exceptions or the FR force is annihilated). I offer as evidence why I believed this two rulings although I remember more discussions I just cannot find them.
________________________________________
Quote:
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Another one on fighting retreat - if the fighting retreat is a continuation of the original battle and all happens under the retreat portion of the SOP - do +/- points carry over from any pursuit round in the original hex?

ANSWER: I would say no on +- points. In some ways it is a new battle (since it is a new location), in some ways it is still retreat of a previous battle.

By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 06:12 pm: Edit

This also brings up another question. You conduct a fighting retreat into a hex with an unresolved battle. Do you have to resolve the entire battle within the new hex immediately, or can you just resolve the fighting retreat portion, leaving the option open to resolve other hexes first?

ANSWER: If you fighting retreat into an unresolved battle, then you fight that next. Likely this will be one round at BIR10/BIR0 with another retreat after one round. If there is a base or planet it might turn into a battle hex instead of just a retreat, but you would fight in next.
________________________________________


Could you look into this and give a ruling on this matter? I will leave my opponent to present his side of things as he has some very compelling arguments on his side, but I am sure he can deliver them better than I so I give him the chance.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, October 08, 2010 - 09:10 am: Edit

I seem to recall an earlier ruling on this matter - perhaps by Chuck - that each FR battle is its own battle that can be resolved in any order. In other words, you don't have to completely resolve a FR sequence if you don't want.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, October 08, 2010 - 10:48 am: Edit

I will search for that.. I did a long look in Q&A with the search yesterday to try and find something! That is actually the way it makes the most sense to me.. I have just been using those rulings above so long.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, October 08, 2010 - 11:02 am: Edit

MP search the 2010 thread as well. It could be that the FR stuff was addressed there.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, October 08, 2010 - 11:14 am: Edit

Thomas,

Good Idea I just looked at the Q&A
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, October 08, 2010 - 02:28 pm: Edit

On Michael's question about Fighting Retreat:

According to the 2010 rules on FR (302.77) there is no requirement that the FR battle be fought immediately when it occurs and in fact part 302.774 actually states that "Retreat priorities and supply are re-evaluated for each hex that the force retreats out of. This is done at the time of that specific retreat." This implies that the Fighting Retreat is not part of the original retreat process, but instead is treated as a whole new retreat once the FR hex battle is resolved.

Also, 302.771 states "However, the retreating force (and whatever friendly units may already be in that hex) mustfight one (and only one) battle round with whatever forces are in that hex and then conduct a further retreat."

This reads to me that more forces from either side could possible arrive in the hex before the FR hex is resolved, and that any units entering the hex before its FR resolution would be subject to the FR conditions. It does not say that the FR combat must be the next one fought in the sequence of battles.

Let's also reference rule 302.772 which states "It is theoretically possible that two forces in the same Battle Hex could end up each doing a fighting retreat into the same hex. In such case, they each fight a battle at battle intensity rating zero and then retreat again."

The only way I can think of to get into this situation is for a previous Fighting Retreat to already be in the retreat hex of the second retreating force, which seems to again imply that the FR battles can be fought in any order the phasing player desires.

I think that covers my position on this question for now.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, October 08, 2010 - 05:20 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
According to the 2010 rules on FR (302.77) there is no requirement that the FR battle be fought immediately when it occurs and in fact part 302.774 actually states that "Retreat priorities and supply are re-evaluated for each hex that the force retreats out of. This is done at the time of that specific retreat." This implies that the Fighting Retreat is not part of the original retreat process, but instead is treated as a whole new retreat once the FR hex battle is resolved.
________________________________________
It doesn't really imply that. It could simply be explaining how while your in this process of chain retreats that you re-evaluate supply each time. Suppose for a moment that it WAS intended that you finish out a fighting retreat completly.. and you did a chain of three consecutive fighting retreats you simply would HAVE to re-evaluate retreat priorities and supply each time in order to both properly choose a retreat hex and to determine if the next leg of this fighting retreat were another FR or if it became a normal retreat and ended the process.
________________________________________
Quote:
According to the 2010 rules on FR (302.77) there is no requirement that the FR battle be fought immediately when it occurs and in fact part 302.774 actually states that "Retreat priorities and supply are re-evaluated for each hex that the force retreats out of. This is done at the time of that specific retreat." This implies that the Fighting Retreat is not part of the original retreat process, but instead is treated as a whole new retreat once the FR hex battle is resolved.
________________________________________
This doesn't read to me that at all. It seems pretty correct if you take either interpretation.
________________________________________
Quote:
Let's also reference rule 302.772 which states "It is theoretically possible that two forces in the same Battle Hex could end up each doing a fighting retreat into the same hex. In such case, they each fight a battle at battle intensity rating zero and then retreat again."

The only way I can think of to get into this situation is for a previous Fighting Retreat to already be in the retreat hex of the second retreating force, which seems to again imply that the FR battles can be fought in any order the phasing player desires.
________________________________________
Actually that is not possible with what it says right? I call out "It is theoretically possible that two forces in the same[emphasis mine] Battle Hex could end up each doing a fighting retreat into the same hex....

This means that both sides in a BattleHex decide to fighting retreat into the same hex. All that is required is that the same hex both sides retreat into is an unresolved battlehex, and of course both forces have another hex they could have chosen to retreat into.

It sounds like I am a partisan for the FR must be resolved.. but I really am not. I will state that the most compelling argument for me that Robert gave me was the simple fact that in F&E2010 Fighting retreat was NOT changed or clarified to state that it must be completly resolved. So many other slippery things were notated but this was not.. that really made me think and when you add in that IF the original intention had been to have FR be completed, it would have been very simple to state that in the original rule, or in 2010, or in the SOP itself.. but all of them are silent.

I still would like Mike C to rule on this...
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, October 08, 2010 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Actually Mike no, if two forces in the same battle hex both then retreat to the same hex, remember that the defender retreats first and as such the retreat will only be a FR for the attacker in that case. And for the record the hex they retreat into does not have to be a pre-existing battle hex to invoke a FR.

And about each FR doing new retreat priorities, remember too that you would be starting over the combat process for that hex, choosing a flagship, battle line and the whole nine yards. You simply do not get a choice of BIR. If Fighting Retreats were truly nested in the original retreat process, then some or all of these preliminary steps would get skipped.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, October 08, 2010 - 06:38 pm: Edit

I could *swear* that this issue was addressed by Chuck Strong, and that the answer is that each FR battle is it's own that can be resolved in any order (not just immediately after the battle that generated the FR).

Mabye it was in one of the deleted threads for 2010.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, October 09, 2010 - 03:12 am: Edit

Robert

Both sides can do a Fighting Retreat - the defenders choice of retreat might be a fighting retreat hex (example, they fighting retreat over a single ship - the attacker also then moves into the same hex, which may be under a Fighting retreat).
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, October 11, 2010 - 12:31 pm: Edit

Robert,

What Paul said. If the hex BOTH sides choose to retreat to is already a battle hex, and BOTH sides had another hex they could have gone to instead, then BOTH sides would be executing a fighting retreat, which is what that example is talking about.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, October 11, 2010 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Ref (302.75)

Fighting Retreat battle hexes are NOT required to be fought immediately once the parent battle hex is resolved. Fighting Retreat battle hexes are simply added to the list of battle hexes that must be resolved during the phasing player's turn in the order chosen by the phasing player. In the case of Fighting Retreat, simply note that the battle hex is to be resolved using the fighting retreat battle rules -- also note any conditions that apply.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, October 11, 2010 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Thanks for the quick clarification Chuck
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Monday, October 11, 2010 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Chuck
Did you get the email I sent to you a few weeks ago
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 12:07 pm: Edit

MHO:

I did get your email but there are no formal existing 'rules' on how a large scenario is broken into smaller sectors.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 04:50 pm: Edit

ok then why it state in a coule of places in the rule book that you can place one item in the main effect sector....no formal existing 'rules' then how can you set up a large scenarios that way
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 05:29 pm: Edit

If one is playing an existing sectorized scenario (Winds of Fire, Maelstrom, Gale Force, etc.) then certain capabilities and rules are only assigned and/or used in the main effort.

For example, a player cannot use production overrides (450.334) in a sector scenario that does not include the main effort. So if you are just playing Winds of Fire, sector C only then you cannot use production overrides in this scenario.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Michael,

Its for scenarios which one or more empires are present in a sector that is NOT the main effort. So there is a scenario where the Feds Kzinti and Gorn are invading the Romulans. For the Kzinti this is not the main effort so certain restrictions are in place. For full scenarios just ignore main effort stuff.

In essence there are some things that a player would do in a relative backwater when that is the ONLY part of the war being played that they very likely would not do if they were playing their empire on the full map. So when you play those scenarios there are restrictions on things not in the main effort. If your playing the full map.. well you can make those decisions yourself!
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 06:11 pm: Edit

Quote:By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 03:26 pm: Edit

Do Monitors count as a ship for pinning

Q(519.0) Do Monitors count as a ship for pinning}

Good question. Under (203.53) non-ships cannot be used to pin. The Annex (756.0) doesn't list monitors as non-ship units but (756.1) does list it as a slow unit (along with overload tugs which can pin units). The monitor rule section (519.0) is silent on the issue. FEAR comments in BLUE

Due to a monitor's mission and their limited engine capability I'd say that they do not 'leave' the local area of their planet looking for trouble. If the Monitor has a pallet then it can "project" some force outside it's planet only position and can still count as a one or more ship equalivients for pinning just like an Aux CV.

A(519.0) Unless overruled by ADB, add rule (519.37): "Monitors cannot pin other units under (203.5). Note that if they have a pallet the attrition units do count in the pin count."
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Thanks for the ruling Chuck and I wholeheartedly agree with the logical basis for that ruling. Its been something that has come up just a few times in my games in the past (where it mattered at least) and we always sort of look at each other with a dumbfounded look, and just end up saying it seems they do but we feel that it is unrealistic.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Note FEAR comments in BLUE above.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 09:28 pm: Edit

A PF or SCS pallet on the monitor would allow a PF flotilla to add to the pin count and in the case of a SCS pallet, both the fighters and PFs would add to the pin count.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, October 14, 2010 - 09:19 am: Edit

Thank you Thomas, my comments adjusted to reflect this.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, October 15, 2010 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Questions on rule (524.0) Causal PF Flotillas.

Q1. What are the actual limits for the CPF? Is the "counters provided" limit the intended limit for each race?

The rule (524.111) lists a limit based in its discussion of counters provided. It says (paraphrased), each race is provided four (4) counters except the Lyrans (7), the Tholian (2) and Orion (0). There is a production limit of 1 per turn in (524.112).


Q2. Does the limit of one CPX in rule (524.14) add to the total limit of CPFs? In other words, if the limit is say 4 CPF (as mentioned loosely in rule 524.111 for most races), is it 4 CPF plus one CPX? Or is it 4 total including the CPX?

Q3. Why does rule (524.14) say "This is the second casual flotilla built"? Does a regular CPF have to be built first?

Q4. Does the reading of rule (524.14) where it says that the CPX can be carried by X-ships or raiding (pool) ships mean that a CPF cannot be carried by an X-ship? Is this where my answer to Q2 (above) lies? Or is a CPX just a marker to be exchanged with a CPF when X-ships carry them? The rule seems to indicate not and that a CPX is built with the intent of being used on X-ships (or normal ships in the raiding pool). Why would the CPX work on normal ships and the CPF not work on X-ships? Are the CPF/CPX counters representative of the mech-link technology? If so this seems a bit backward.

Sorry for all the confusion Mike...please set me straight.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, October 15, 2010 - 04:05 pm: Edit

FEAR and FEDS -

I don't think this question was every clarified -

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 05:34 pm: Edit


Request for clarification and reconsideration:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Q503.622 According to (503.622), A Neutral Zone hex is "captured" if it is occupied, or if the capturing player was the last to move a unit through it and no enemy ships are in or adjacent to it.

However, this ruling by Nick back in 2005 confuses things a bit:
________________________________________
Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 03:10 pm: Edit

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


What is the intent of the rule? Are NZ hexes captured as it is written, or does it indeed work the way Nick ruled in 2005?

A503.622 What is not clear? You move through neutral zone hex A, there are no adjacent enemy ships. You claim the hex. When it comes around to your economic phase you check the hex to see if any enemy ships have moved adjacent since you have claimed the hex or the previous economic phase. If there are not any you get 0.2 EPs for that hex.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The lack of clarity comes from, IMHO, other players reading too much into the rule. Currently, there are two issues in dispute. The first issue is that an enemy moving through my NZ hex removes my claim to it, even if I have an adjacent ship. I say that this idea is not supported by the rule. The second issue is that the mere existence of an enemy ship next to the NZ hex denies me the 0.2 EPs (as opposed to applying normal supply rules). I say this idea is also not supported by the rule.

Here's my perspective.

What 503.622 tells me is that I capture a NZ hex if A or B. A is if I occupy the NZ hex. B is if I was the last to move through through the NZ hex *and* no enemy ships are in or adjacent the NZ hex. If either condition A or condition B is satisifed, I capture the NZ hex. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

In other words, 503.622 *ONLY* tells you whether the NZ hex has been captured. Nothing else. That means that normal supply rules would dictate whether I derive income from the captured NZ hex; and the mere proximity of an enemy ship is irrelevant (i.e., unless the enemy ship adjacent the NZ hex disrupted my supply to that hex, I would draw income from the captured NZ hex).

Additionally, there is a dispute that 503.622 can be read in such a way as to *remove* my claim to the NZ hex. The assertion is that an enemy that moves *through* my previously captured NZ hex removes my claim to it, unless I have an occupying ship - even if I have an adjacent ship.

I respectfully dispute this assertion because I think that 503.622 is actually quite clear and there's been a bunch of "reading into it" that's not supported by the clear meaning of rule itself. There's no provision to "eliminate" my claim - just replace my claim with yours.


So, I'll make this easy on you. I am requesting the following ruling. If you agree with my reasoning, then you could either use this draft ruling, or modify it as you see fit. Or just say I'm bogus and say whatever you want. However, at least the *situation* will be clarified.

Thanks for the reconsideration.


Proposed ruling to issue on 503.622
A503.622: This rule tells you how to capture a NZ hex. That's it: nothing more, nothing less. Rule 503.622 implies nothing regarding eliminating the prior owner's claim, except by replacing his claim. Rule 503.622 implies nothing regarding denying your opponent enjoyment of income from the captured NZ hex, though of course you may either replace his claim with yours or possibly block your opponents supply to the NZ hex under the normal rules (which then may or may not be part of a valid partial supply grid).

In other words, once you own a NZ hex, normal supply rules determine whether you draw income from the NZ hex you have previously captured. Additionally, ownership of a previously captured NZ hex does not change merely because an enemy moves through it. You cannot "eliminate" a player's claim to a NZ hex, you can only replace his claim with yours using the capture rules defined in 503.622.

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

Please consider this a request to bump up to FEDS. Thank you.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, April 30, 2010 - 05:46 am: Edit


FEAR - I beleive your answer on Neutral Zones unfortunately does not resolve this query, and Ted has sort of appealed it anyway.

For simplicity, clarity and to align Neutral Zones with home provinces, might I suggest the following -

503.622 'Who ever moves through a Neutral Zone last owns it and may claim thje 0.2 Ep's, if it is connected to a (Full or partial) supply grid.'

The reason for this suggestion is -

430.21 confirms for home provinces that if the original owner has nothing in the province, and your enemy does. Your enemy ownz the province.

If the enemy forces leave the province, the province becomes disrupted.

Enemy or Friendly forces adjacent to the province have no effect on ownership - so why should Neutral zones be different (or harder to capture than home provinces)?

It also doesn't matter how those forces moves through the hex, as if an ememy force retreated into a home province, it would capture or disrupt the province.

Simple solution I think.

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

Thanks
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, October 15, 2010 - 04:45 pm: Edit

IMHO the NZ issue is very simple, and there's much ado about nothing. 503.622 contains *no* language regarding removing someone's claim. None. The only way to "remove" a claim is to stake your own claim.

You stake your own claim by either 1) occupying the NZ hex during operational movement or 2) moving through, but only if there are no adjacent enemy ships.

I might also add that you derive income from a NZ hex any time that NZ hex is in supply. For example, the presence of an adjacent enemy ship makes no difference if you have your own adjacent friendly ship and otherwise can trace a valid supply path. 503.622 *only* relates to capturing NZ provinces, not calculating income form them.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 02:26 am: Edit

Ted

The original rulling (in 2005) did make reference to ships being adjacant at 'point of capture' and 'point of claiming income'.

Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 03:10 pm: Edit

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

(and 2010 wording is the same as the 2000 wording).

I think there must be an easy way to confirm 'how' you can capture and remove ownership of Neutral Zone hexes - without giving the Coalition, circa, an extra 6 Ep's a turn which is almost impossible to stop them getting on Ted's interpretation (but the current ruling doesn't seem to be alligned with how income on home provinces is disrupted - hence why I asked for clarification).

As it stands - to both own and claim the income on NZ hexes, there can't be enemy ships (including Pol Ships) adjacent at the time you move through (Ted is correct that if you stay in the NZ and end the Op move there you do capture it - irrelevant to enemy ships being adjacent) AND at the point of claiming the 0.2Ep's there can't be enemy forces adjacent.

The introduction of the second part I think has confused things - but I prefer the current whole rule, rather than Ted's interpretation, for game balance purposes (the Alliance will get very few Ep's from NZ hexes, but atleast they can reduce what the Coalition will get).

So you might be able to capture it (or re-capture it by the enemy) by leaving forces in the hex - but if the enemy has a ship adjacent to it - you don't get the income.

I believe (rightly or wrongly) that the intention of the rule should be the same as normal provinces - if you have a ship there, you own it - if you was the last to move through it - you own it, if your enemy hasn't Op moved through it.

(I also believe retreat movement into a NZ hex should return the hex to being neutral - the original owner can't own it, as enemy forces were last there - but the retreating force doesn't have time to survey it for it's wealth!)
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 08:54 am: Edit

(523.4) Does an X conversion of a base from the standard base to the X base, i.e. BATS to BTX require a tug or can a single LTT perform such a X-conversion?

(444.22) Can a planet upgrade an Op Base (453.0) in the same way it can upgrade a Mobile Base?

(444.2) Can a planet upgrading a MB or Op Base (if allowed) upgrade the base in question to a BSX (444.33) if X Tech is available at the time of conversion?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 09:25 am: Edit

Paul,

That ruling by Nick Blank is *not supported* by *any language* in 503.622. In short, the ruling is clearly incorrect. You get the money so long as you can draw supply. (I will eat crow and admit that I'm a fool if someone can point me to the rule that says otherwise.)

Even if the ruling were upheld, it still says that you *still own* the hex - you just don't collect cash if there are adjacent enemy ships.

I don't know what the *intent* of the rule is, but I can read plain English. There is *nothing* there *at all* that supports the idea that retreat movement returns a hex to being neutral.

In fact, the opposite is true. 503.623 (622?) *specifically states* that *only operational movement* can claim a NZ hex. In the absence of any language that allows the removal of a claim, it makes no sense to state that you remove a claim to a NZ hex by the operation of retreat movement.

Also, the rules regarding NZ hexes and provinces are *very different*. They really aren't comparable. You can't, for example, capture a province by moving a ship through an empty province - *even if* there were no adjacent enemy ships. Provinces require garrisoning, NZ hexes don't.

Now, if provinces and NZ hexes should be harmonized in terms of how they work, then that would be a *rules change* - but that's beyond the province of rulings. In the case at hand, the plain English of the rule militates the response.

I challenge you to show how the plain English of the rule supports the idea of *removing* claims to a province. Not rulings - the English of the rule itself.

Also, in the absence of a contraindication in the rules, I challenge you to show how the plain English of the rules supports the idea that you cannot derive income from an *already owned* NZ hex if there's an adjacent enemy ship - assuming you had your own friendly adjacent ship. In other words, without a rule stating otherwise, how can the rules themselves (not Nick's ruling) change the way you count EPs relative to any other province or planet.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Sorry - should have been clearer - I believe (without any rule to support it), that a retreating force, logically, should be able to stop the enemy controlling the hex.

i..e - Retreats (currently) DON'T change ownership, but logically, I think they should.

Nicks ruling - well thats why it needs to be clarified, as his FEAR rulling has force of rules at the moment - no matter what we may or may not interpret the rule to be !
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 04:14 pm: Edit

OK, now we're on the same page. You're arguing for a rules change, which is perfectly fine.

Obviously, I oppose it, but at least we're talking apples and apples!
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 20, 2010 - 11:51 am: Edit

A Q&A ruling establishes that planets that enter rebellion no longer act as a supply point for the conqueroring empire.

In the case of G actions that surpress the rebellion is supply returned immediatly upon surpression or is there a delay like in a reconquest? (Or I suppose there could be other possibilities I do not envision)

In the case of liberation of a rebellious planet by the original empire and/or its allies does supply return immediatly or is it delayed as any other liberation? (see caveat above)

I expect the answer to the first question will be immediate, and the second delayed as any other liberation.

Immediate to the first as I suspect the idea is that rebels are not destroying the infrastructure to let supply flow as much as they are disrupting the free flow. So when the rebels are run into the hills, in terms of a strategic turn the planet immediatly begins shipping supplies again.

Delayed on the second as when you liberate a planet I assume the delay represents setting up the logistical hardware and command control structure to act as a supply base. You have to 'retool' as it were.

Although I am very neutral on how it should be done, and in my current game where this came into question we are playing it as if a rebellion supression causes a delay to the conquoring empire.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, October 20, 2010 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Heh, I was about to post the same question.... Here it is in a different wording.

Basically, *when* does a conquered planet become a supply point for the opposing player if a rebellion generated on phase X (like Alliance turn 7) is suppressed on phase Y (like Coalition turn 8). Is it on phase Y during combat and after suppression (e.g. CT8 after you succeed on the suppression roll) or on phase Y+1 (e.g. AT8, as if the planet had been conqured on CT8).

Thanks.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 02:40 am: Edit

F&E Ruling Appeal
________________________________________
Quote:
From: Warren Mathews [email address removed by request. -- J.Sexton]
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 7:48 AM
To: Charles Strong
Cc: Mike Curtis
Subject: F&E Ruling Appeal

I request a review of this ruling by FEAR.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Q424.35: When using Depot Level Repair to repair crippled ships is it one ship total per turn or up to one ship per depot track per turn?

R424.35: One crippled ship per turn is allowed to be placed in one of the holding boxes for the Depot Level Repair. Not one ship per holding box in the depot.


I believe that this ruling is in error. The Depot Level Repair charts are setup with multiple tracks. If it was originally intended to be one ship per turn regardless of type then One sheet with one track per empire would have sufficed for the DLR rules. With Multiple tracks per empire on the tracking chart I believe the intent is to allow one or more ships to begin the journey through the DLR track(s).
________________________________________

Rule (424.35) refers to unused DLR capacity. Each repair track can repair at no cost the ‘worst damaged’ ships [see text (424.0)] of the fleet at no cost (abstracted) so logic would assume that a crippled ship would be easier to repair than a ‘worst damaged’ ship. The repair capacity for EACH track exist whether it is used or not.

The appeal is SUSTAINED by FEDS: Empires with multiple depot repair tracks may send one eligible crippled ship per turn PER HOLDING POOL TRACK to avoid wasting capacity of multiple tracks.

Additional FEDS ruling: Once a crippled ship is placed in a DLR holding box, it cannot be removed from DLR and repaired using any other repair method. (The DLR teams begins a irreversible cannibalization process once a ship enters DLR that is abstracted into the game system; the salvage option in (424.34) still applies).
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 11:27 am: Edit

Wow. I'm shocked by that ruling. Not that I argued against it or anything, but very surprised.

Probably a wash Coalition/ Alliance. Benefits Alliance more proporionately given their smaller incomes, but the Coalition can use it more in total.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 11:04 am: Edit

If a planet has less than the full 10 points of devestation damage applied to it, does that damage remain so that it is easier to devestate on later turns or is that damage lost when the attacker decides to retreat?
________________________________________
Quote:
(508.21) Devestating: ...and an additional ten points of damage are scored on the planet (which can be accumulated over several combat rounds), the planet is "devestated" ...
________________________________________
the omission at the beginning is about you must kill all the PDU's and the end is about the RDF and the economic effects.

I had always thought that if you did not Devestate the planet all in one turn that this damage disappeared and next turn it would require the full 10 points to be devestated. After reading the rule again recently several times I realize I might be reading into it. I still believe I am correct, but the only language I can point to is the "...over several combat rounds" it would make sense to me if it meant the damage remained between turns the language would have said something like "...several combat rounds and/or turns". I also have a logical argument, if it had meant for this devestation damage to remain some method would have to exist to reset the damage, either so many turns or so much damage per turn. So the lack of any language explaining how this is handled further indicates that this devestation damage is removed at the end of the combat phase. It would have been simple to even say "These damage points are 'revocered from' in 4 turns just as a devestated planet recovers' but the lack of even this statement makes me believe these points disappear much like minus or plus points.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 11:50 am: Edit

Good question. Stated differently: Does it take 4 turns (less with hospital ship) to "recover" from less than full devastation?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Planetary damage is cleared at the end of the combat PHASE of the current player turn. If you there is not enough damage to devastate the planet then the planet is not devastated. There is no enabling rule that says partial planetary damage is carried over and accounted for over player turn breaks.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Chuck,

Thanks for the quick response. I have always THOUGHT it was that way, but then I realized "Well Mike there ya go thinkin' again"
By Jose R. Barreto (Jbarreto) on Sunday, October 31, 2010 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Can diplomats be sent to the ISC for trade income?

Also, does the limited war status of the Federation on turn 7 interrupt the supply path for diplomatic trade income between the Romulans and the rest of the coaliton?

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 02:53 pm: Edit

November - December 2010 Archive

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 07:47 am: Edit

(310.42) After the successful freezing of a target with an SFG (312.222), are the die roll modifiers in (310.12) recalculated before resolving ESSC?

Note for consideration: Compot is required to be recalculated for the force of ships frozen under (312.211).
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 08:53 pm: Edit

JRB, after the Andro invasion, sure, during the GW, no (who are those guys?)

As for the Fed limited war, the Roms are still neutral at that time, so no interruption...
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 09:27 pm: Edit

Stewart, I thought the Gorns and Roms could send Diplomats to the ISC around Y180 till the end of the GW. I couldn't find anything to confirm or deny it though.

I would agree that once the Andro Invasion starts in earnest then anyone could send a Diplomat to the ISC.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 10:18 pm: Edit

Found it.

JRB here's the answer to Diplomats:
________________________________________
Quote:
(540.146) Diplomats may not be sent to the ISC prior to Y180 but from that time function normally as provided herein.
________________________________________
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 01:45 am: Edit

Cool, thanks Thomas and Stewart. So it won't cost the Roms their diplomatic income if the Colaition delay the attack on the Feds, and it might be wise to bring one diplomat back before the Romulans get cut off, so they can trade with the ISC.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, November 07, 2010 - 12:19 pm: Edit

An interesting question. Once Orion withdraw from the Federation, can Diplomats be sent to Orion as an Armed Neutral? (Dibs on any Tac Note as this has been in my head for a while) And can a Diplomat be sent to the WYN cluster?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 07, 2010 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Dan, The Wyn Trade Rules override Diplomatic Trade wtih regards to the Wyn. See (540.23). Therefore you wouldn't get any value of sending a Diplomat to the WYN. Most empires couldn't afford to build another diplomat for tha purpose anyways.

As to the Orions, I think you would have to deliver the diplomatic team (if allowed) by blockaide running.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, November 07, 2010 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Why would I have to deliver the Diplomat by Blockade Running? A Ship with a diplomat can enter neutral space without suffering internment. Not that it would matter, since for the coalition the diplomat could (potentially) arrive on the first E4/K4 that causes Orion to withdraw from the Federation and the Federation definitely has a supply point in range to blockade run into Orion.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 07, 2010 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Dan, that's the only legal way I think you can get a diplomat to Orion without the Klingons getting Orion.
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Sunday, November 07, 2010 - 09:55 pm: Edit

540.0 and 534.232 Can a player use E&S missions to assassinate enemy diplomats in neutral space?

540.25 Also, we've been doing the rolls for negotiating with neutral planets during economics. Is this correct? I don't see it defined anywhere.

524.0 Also, are E&S missions allowed against future belligerents (in neutral? or enemy? territory) then? What about the Feds while they're neutral or limited war? We disallowed all but the Feds at limited war, but the rules don't specify one way or another...
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, November 09, 2010 - 10:08 am: Edit

A question on economics and province ownership.

What is at issue is when exactly is a province considered captured. I will use an example during the game. Province 701 on turn 2 had a Kzinti BATS in 701 and nothing else. A lyran force came in and destroyed the BATS in combat. Then retrograded out leaving no coalition units in the province and likewise no alliance units.

During alliance turn 2 the question arises. Does province 701 (which can be connected to the kzinti grid) provide 2ep to the Kzinti or only 1 ep under 430.24 (Abandoned) rule.

The Kzinti player originally collected only 1 ep, and on checking the accounting the Lyran player pointed out that since the province in question was original Kzinti Space, and that it had never been captured by him, that since there were no coalition units in the province that it was therefore worth 2ep and not the 1ep for abandoned.

The Kzinti player rebuffed that since at the end of combat no alliance units were in the province and coalition units were.. that it was captured since they had sole possession of the province at that point.

It is the Lyran players position that province ownership is determined only at the point that economics is considered, and therefore the province was never coalition owned.

This comes about because whle economics relies upon the idea of province ownership, the exact time or times where ownership can change have not been defined. The Lyran player argues that in the absence of rules or a SOP designation that economics phase is the only choice for when to evaluate ownership. The rules for captured disrupted and ownership are set forth in 430.00+ and indeed the ONLY time one need to know the ownership of a province is when one accounts for economics. It is neccessary and sufficient to determine province ep's to determine ownership at the time of accounting.

The Kzinti player argues that the language
________________________________________
Quote:
430.22)...If the province contains no friendly units, only enemy units, the province is deemed "captured"
________________________________________

allows a capture to happen as he claims. Counter to that if one uses that language a capture could occur by virtue of an enemy ship merely passing through an empty enemy province during operational (as well as reserve or retrograde) movement without ever stopping.. and while this works for unclaimed NZ hexes I do not believe it is the intention to allow this for provinces.

So while I believe it should be done in economics phase, these are the possibilities I see.

1. Ownership of a province is determined in the economics phase.

2. Ownership of a province is determined at the end of any phase. (or perhaps only certain phases like combat and/or operational movement)

3. Ownership of a province is determined dynamically, as soon as one side or the other is in sole possession of a hex of a province ownership switches to that side. (i.e. it becomes either captured or not)
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, November 09, 2010 - 08:11 pm: Edit

Turtle,

Ships with fewer than 6 combat factors carrying a diplomat can enter neutral territory and move freely as long as they don't attack anything. That is a specific rule to diplomats and would override a general rule. However, blockade running a diplomat in is more efficient as I don't have to leave the ship there with the diplomat. I'll remember to include that information in any tac note.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, November 09, 2010 - 08:22 pm: Edit

Paul wrote:
________________________________________
Quote:
540.25 Also, we've been doing the rolls for negotiating with neutral planets during economics. Is this correct? I don't see it defined anywhere.
________________________________________


This appears to be correct. 540.251 states that you roll in the economic phase of your player turn.
By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Monday, November 15, 2010 - 08:38 am: Edit

In light of the recent ruling on depot-level repair, a question on using depot capacity comes to mind:

Is it legal to place an uncrippled variant hull into depot for the purpose of returning it to the base hull configuration at no cost? (other than two years out of service, of course!)
By Shayne Demeria (Nighthawk) on Monday, November 15, 2010 - 12:34 pm: Edit

This was missed in a swarm of other comments.

Is this a legal CVBG ?

CVA, DVL NAE, NAC, DWA, DWA
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, November 23, 2010 - 05:05 pm: Edit

Q515.141 forming carrier groups.

Are carrier groups formed once per battle hex - or are they fixed until the retrograde phase?

Situation: Zin fight at 1502 and assign carrier groups. They retreat to 1401 and then fight again. Are carrier escorts re-assigned, or do the ones assigned at 1502 stay as previously designated for the new 1401 fight, and only new carrier groups are formed?

Issues: 515.141 appears to indicate that you form once per battle hex. Later rules speak in terms of the combat procedure, not the combat phase per se. However, the SoP indicates at step 6C that carrier groups may be dissolved during the retrograde phase.

It's pretty unclear to me, so please provide ruling. Thanks.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, November 23, 2010 - 07:47 pm: Edit

Ted,

There is a previous Q&A ruling that says you go through the assign escorts for CV's only once during the FIRST combat they are involved in. So if you form CV groups in one battle then retreat into another one, your already allocated CV's keep their current escort assignments (and cannot pick up new escorts) but the CV's that had not yet been in battle would then pick up escorts.

Now does this ruling jive with the 2010 rules set? I dunno its likely worth getting a new ruling since some substantial CV/Escort rules changed. But by allowing CV/Escorts to be defined every Battle Hex there are some very squirrly things that can be done, and it would likely massively favour the Alliance.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 - 09:50 am: Edit

Michael,

Can you direct to where that ruling is? I ask because I have always played that you can reallocate escorts during pursuit. That would seem to imply an entirely new battle hex caused by a retreat would allow reallocation. However, I am at work and don't have my rules with me.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 - 10:09 am: Edit

RJM You can indeed reassign during pursuit.

Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 11:19 am:

Pursuit question for you.

After a lengthy capital assault, the Hydrans are retreating with many crippled CVA groups as follows. Cripples are in paranthesis:

(ID),(NEC),(NEC),DWE
(ID),FCR,(NEC),(HDW-E),AH
(ID),(HDW-E),NEC,AH
(ID),(NEC),NEC,DWE
LP,(NEC),(NEC),DE,DWE

Frankly, we are at a total loss on how to make a line out of this. There are 12 crippled ships and 10 healthy ones. The final battle force can have no more than 3 healthy ships, right? Are there limitations on which ones? What about the other healthy ships that are being dragged there by the cripples they're escorting? Their compot is ignored, right? In general, help! Thanks.

Nick B. ANSWER: See rules (308.122) and (515.15). The first lets you swap escorts in order to concentrate cripples into one group, and non-cripples into another. The second allows you to drop escorts during pursuit (your only option if the first does not resolve the conflict). In any case, you cannot have more than three uncrippled ships after including the cripples (unless command limits so allow).
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 - 10:32 am: Edit

You CANNOT Reallocate during pursuit. You may do some very specific things like swap escorts between groups and drop escorts. That is to allow you to make a legal force for pursuit. What you CANNOT do is to reallocate/re-assign. By that last I mean if you say had left a Kzinti CVE without an escort during the battle. You could NOT give that CVE an escort during pursuit nor could you if you had an EFF you had not assigned assign that escort to a CV for pursuit.

So for pursuit Lar's answer is spot on, you have the exceptions to allow some moving about of escorts or dropping of escorts that were already assigned.

As for where the ruling is, I do not have it at hand but a search in Q&A should come up with it if you look for it. In any case I believe FEAR should re-iterate the ruling (or make a new one) since some things have changed in the 2010 rules. However a close careful reading of the (308.1) and (515.1) should I think resolve the issues here even without appealing to past rulings to be honest. When I did a close reading just now it seems the language has been clarified.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 - 10:36 am: Edit

Ted,

In looking at my above response, I found the black letter rules for my response to you about reforming CV groups.
________________________________________
Quote:
(515.144) A carrier that retreats into another Battle Hex during the same Combat Phase cannot get new escorts under the 'once per Battle Hex' provision.
________________________________________


At least I think that is what you were looking for. Then there are other times when you can dissolve groups which is Pursuit Operational Reserve Strategic and Retrograde I believe but that list is off the top of my head.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 - 11:34 am: Edit

Ah, missed that. That does seem to be black letter.
By James Lowry (Rindis) on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 - 12:47 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
(515.152) During each Movement Step (Operational, Retrograde, Reserve, Strategic), carrier groups may be broken down into individual ships, and those ships may be treated under (515.14) and moved to different locations and formed into groups only when the force begins a Combat Step.
________________________________________


I think it might be said even more clearly elsewhere that groups basically only exist in the Combat Phase, though players can act as if they exist in other phases to help remember to keep them together, but I'm not seeing it at the moment.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 - 01:15 pm: Edit

Question about the sale of ships to the Wyn Cluster. Unfortunately this has been going round and round for awhile but there is apparently still some confusion, perhaps the confusion lies just with me!

A ruling in Q&A in March 2008. Pardon for the verbosity but I wanted to include the whole thing.
________________________________________
Quote:
Q&A MAr 2008

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

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

If the answer to 1 is no.

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

Conditions of the ship prevent reaction.

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

Answer to 1 & 2 make this not applicable.

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

Answer to 1 & 2 make this not applicable.

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

Answer to 1 & 2 make this not applicable.

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

Answer to 1 & 2 make this not applicable.

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

None of the three surround neighbors want the WYN to mad at them. They all gain way too much by having them their neighbor.
________________________________________


This seems to be saying in part that Ships sold to the Wyn are not able to be reacted to at all.

However from CL 37 and dated Mid NOV 2008 there is this by SVC
________________________________________
Quote:
SALE OF SHIPS TO THE WYN CLUSTER
Q: In reference to Klingons selling a ship to the WYNs on Turn #1, the official online Errata says:
(449.2) This rule forms an exception to (601.161). While the ship is technically leaving Klingon space, it is also technically no longer Klingon. Specific rules always overrule general rules, so the specific (449.2) [you can sell it!] overrules the more general (601.161) [you can’t leave!]. Had we known that (449.2) was going to happen before we printed (601.161) it would have included a reference to (449.2). We’ll add one in the Warbook.
I understand what this is saying; it is allowing the Klingons to sell a ship to the WYNs on Turn #1 even though they are not allowed to send a ship outside of the empire during that turn. This is a good ruling that makes sense. However, the ramifications of this rule concern me. By the errata, it is now a WYN vessel now instead of a Klingon vessel. So it immediately becomes a WYN ship before it moves. It was not clear before this ruling what a WYN vessel could do, as it never had an opportunity to be on the map even in this transitory manner, but there are no rules for handling a WYN vessel on the map. Who moves it? Can anyone react to it? Can it attack something? Can you pin it? Can it pin anything? What can it do? What can’t it do?
A: Calm down! You’re extrapolating a lot of rules from one misunderstanding. The ship becomes a WYN vessel at the instant it crosses the hex side into the WYN Cluster. (Nothing says it is a WYN vessel before then.) Once it is in the WYN Cluster, it follows the WYN rules, which (until F&E: Civil Wars is published) means it is simply removed from the map. Indeed, you don’t actually even have to move it to the Cluster, you just remove it from the map. (There is no need to move it on the map for a Turn #1 sale, as there is no way for anyone to stop the movement. In later turns, such movement is of course required.)
________________________________________


So the question still remains

Can a vessel being sold to the Wyn be reacted to?

The Q&A ruling seems to say no, but the later ruling by SVC while not using language to specifically override the earlier Q&A seems to suggest that the ship has to move by regular means until it reaches the Wyn Cluster and the phrase '..there is no way for anyone to stop the movement..' [referring to turn 1] certainly strongly suggests that in later turns there is a way for others to stop the movement such as by reaction and pinning.

Its been my belief since I read the CL 37 ruling that the intention was to clarify that the Klingons can indeed sell a ship to the Wyn Turn #1 as well as ti clarify the ship isn't Wyn till its in and that until its Wyn its fair game to those who are at war with the empire trying to sell the ship.

So after all this long windedness I engaged in.

Q: Are vessels that are intending to be sold to the Wyn Cluster eligible to be reacted upon while they move to the hex adjacent to the cluster?
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Michael Parker

I dont have my rule book with me.... I think you can do a Strategic Movement Phase too....so no reacted on the move....I may be wrong but I have done it that way a couple of time

mholiver
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Also to Michael's question:

It's being assumed that the ship no longer belongs to the empire that is selling the ship at the time the ship is declared to be sold. This has to be true, otherwise the Klingons could not sell a ship T1 (though to be honest I don't know how they can sell a ship T1 since none of their fleets are released and new construction is too far away). The ruling Michael quoted says that the ship, in the example given, is no longer Klingon. So this begs the question, who's ship is it? It appears it's also not WYN until it reaches the cluster. The only conclusion I can come to if the ship is not Klingon (or any other empire) and it's not WYN, then it must be a neutral ship. Of course we have no rules about neutral ships, but I would think that such a ship would not be attacked by anyone since it's neutral. So perhaps it can be reacted to, but probably not pinnable since no one would be hostile to the ship lest they piss off the WYN? Or am I totally off base?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 - 05:29 pm: Edit

Rob the Klingons can sell a ship to the WYN by 1 of 2 methods. placing an E4 near enough that it can move operationally into the WYN hex, or by using blockade running to deliver the ship to the WYN.
By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Robert, the ship is Klingon until the moment it enters the Cluster, at which point it belongs to the WYNs. It is never in any "in-between" state.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 - 07:02 pm: Edit

HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....Happy Thankgiving.........Guys and Girls
By Michael Tisdel (Jtisdel) on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 - 10:37 pm: Edit

Terry O'Carroll said:

>>>the ship is Klingon until the moment it enters the Cluster, at which point it belongs to the WYNs. It is never in any "in-between" state.

You know a game has gotten complex when you're reading a rules discussion and it reminds you of your Quantum Physics class, Dr Schroedinger (sp?), and his poor cat....
By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 - 11:23 pm: Edit

"I can't find my keys!"
"You obviously know too much about their momentum."
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, November 26, 2010 - 06:56 pm: Edit

Well, the thing is, if the ship is still Klingon, then it is not alowed to leave Klingon space. There is also the limitation of not being allowed to enter the hexes adjacent to the WYN.

You can't place an E4 close enough then sell it, as all fleets are unrealeased and they can not leave their deployment zones. I suppose you could blockade run something you just built there, but it seems a little odd given they're at war with nobody at the time so do they get their raid pool on T1? But then, would you rather sell that E4 or send EPs to trade with the WYN? I'd personally rather get the WYN trade rolling as soon as possible.

But, if the ship has no "in between" state, then there is nothing to stop your opponent from intercepting the ship and stopping it from reaching it's destination. And I think that's the crux of the question, otherwise Mike and Nick's old rulings make no sense.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Friday, November 26, 2010 - 07:12 pm: Edit

314.11 prevents the Klingons from placing ships in the raid pool on turn 1, so they couldn't blockade run an E4 to the WYN in any case.
By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Friday, November 26, 2010 - 10:06 pm: Edit

I really think people are just overthinking this whole thing. You can move a ship into the Cluster to sell it to the WYNs because the rules say you can. The specific rule about selling ships to the WYNs override the general rules about unreleased ships etc. On Turn 1, since no-one is at war with the Klingons, there is no opportunity to react to this movement so you don't even need to move the ship. The Klingon player just says "I'm selling this E4 to the WYNs." The E4 is removed, the Klingons get the money, and that's that.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Friday, November 26, 2010 - 11:14 pm: Edit

449.21 requires that any ship sold to the WYN must enter via either operational movement or blockade running.

Per 314.11, the Klingons can't conduct blockade runs on turn 1.

Per 503.61, ships cannot be sent into neutral zone hexes adjacent to a future belligerent: particularly, 503.611 prohibits entry into hexes 0805 and 0905 on turn 1.

I don't see any way, with the rules as currently written, for the Klingons to get a ship to the WYN for sale on turn 1. 449.2 provides that a race need not be at war in order to sell ships to the WYN, but does not provide any specific overrides of general rules above.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, November 26, 2010 - 11:40 pm: Edit

Isn't the prohibition for those hexes just for the Lyrans (no rulebook, over at friends for turkey) to keep the alliance a 'secret'?
By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Saturday, November 27, 2010 - 12:36 am: Edit

I don't have the PO rules in front of me, but it doesn't have to say, "BTW these rules override these other rules". The override is implied. The general rule is "you can't move ships into neutral hexes next to future belligerents" and the specific rule implies that you can do it in the specific case of sale to the WYNs, because you can't sell to them [when not at war] without ignoring general rules which would otherwise prohibit it.

Edited: add clarifying wording
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, November 27, 2010 - 09:22 am: Edit

Agreed that the specific rule overrides or limits the general rule, but in this case the specific rule is 449.21 (sold ships must arrive via operational movement or blockade running) limits the general rule 449.2 (Klingons, Lyrans, and Kzinti may each sell one ship per year, even if not at war).

Note that, since they are both directly adjacent to the WYN, without intervening neutral zone hexes, it seems that the Lyrans and Kzinti would be able to sell ships on turn 1, even if the Lyrans did not attack the Kzinti.

EDIT:

Suppose that the optional rule allowing all races to sell ships to the WYN was in effect. Would the Hydrans be allowed to sell ships on turns 1 and 2, even though there is absolutely no way in blue blazes they could (legally) get a warship to the WYN?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Sunday, November 28, 2010 - 06:33 pm: Edit

I don't think this is a case of a more specific rule overriding a general rule. And by the rule numbers, it's a hard argument to say which is more specific, WYN sales or scenario sub-rules, which are the ones causing the trouble. Otherwise we start having the argument of can the Klingons blockade run a ship to the WYN, if that rule is more specific than the rule preventing the Klingons from adding ships to the raid pool, etc.

Now if the WYN rules actually gave a mechamism in which the movement could violate the other rules we'd be cool but it does not. It merely says you must move the ship you wish to sell to the WYN by either operational or strategic movement. It does not say you get to ignore any restrictions on said movement, just that you have to use it.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, November 29, 2010 - 09:06 am: Edit

During the procudure for a capital assault, the defender of the capital hex must split his/her ships into static, mobile and crippled ships pools. So what happens if say a carrier group is damaged (one ship crippled) during combat in the capital hex? Does the whole group become part of the static element at the system it was damaged in? Or is the group forced to break up at that point to leave the crippled ship in the system while the rest of the group remains mobile?

Another similiar question. What happens if a previous battle hex in which carrier groups were present retreats into a capital assault battle hex, and some of those carrier groups are damaged (contain one or more crippled ships)? How are those groups treated? Would those groups be forced to become static elements, or would only the crippled ships in the group become static elements?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, November 29, 2010 - 10:14 am: Edit

Possible other alternative to the "similar question" by Rob: The old carrier groups with crippled escorts can be broken down and escorts reassigned, despite rule normally preventing that.

Another problem raised by this issue of prior damaged CV groups retreating into a capital hex:

If old carrier groups from the prior combat hex cannot break down, then it is more than possible that you cannot split ship classes evenly - in normal violation of the requirement to split ship classes as evenly as possible. Which requirement has priority?

If splitting ship classes has priority, then you MUST be able to break down old carrier groups in the new capital hex.

If maintaining old escorts is the priority, then how do you determine whether the unbalanced number of escorts are static or mobile? Do you have another requirement to have an unbalanced number of hull types to balance the unbalanced escorts? For example, say the Zin are required to have 4 of 4 available EFF assigned to old CV groups from the prior combat hex, and say these must be static because each has a crippled CLE. Say there are 4 regular FF. Normally 2 FF would be static and 2 mobile. You could balance the EFF by putting all 4 of the FF into the mobile group.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, November 29, 2010 - 10:19 am: Edit

Further thoughts on the interaction between old CV groups from prior combat hexes, with some of those CV groups having crippled units.


I strongly recommend an outright rules change here. In the case of retreating into a capital assault, or for that matter any multi-system assault, the normal requirement that old groups from the prior combat must be maintained are vitiated. Thus, all old groups are broken down, and escorts are re-assigned according to the normal requirements for splitting ships amongst the mobile, static, and crippled pools.

This rules change, or possibly rules "reinterpretation" would completely eliminate all of the serious and confusing problems caused by the interaction of capital assault split rules and the requirement to maintain old CV groups from a prior battle hex. Simple and elegant, and you're done.

If there's a defender advantage here, then I say "too bad" - chalk it up to capital hex defense advantage and leave it at that. Otherwise, you get a confusing mess of rules interactions.

Thanks for consideration.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, November 29, 2010 - 11:18 am: Edit

I believe the ships uncrippled in those groups would be counted as part of the '50% Static' force - so if you had say 2 x CV, 2 x MEC, 1 x EFF, 1 x crippled EFF and 1 x FF, you would end up with (with the CV, MEC, eff group having retreated in) : -

Static pool CV, MEC, eff plus FF
Mobile Pool CV, MEC, EFF

Might be wrong though!
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, November 29, 2010 - 11:26 am: Edit

It's a CMF. Honestly, you could do rule about anything and it could be reasonable.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - 02:54 pm: Edit

Ted, I don't think there is a problem with your example. According to 511.53, you divide on a type by type basis "as evenly as possible". That does not imply that you MUST have 3 CVS static and 3 CVS mobile (if you only have 6 in the hex), just that you need to get a close to even as you can. Also by 511.531, the combat value of the two groups must be as even as possible. Again that's not going to be that hard unless you have only a small group of ships, and even then it's probably not that tough.

And you were spot on on being able to have 4xEFFs on one side and 4xFF on the other, as 511,537 allows you to consider escorts as their base hull type.

I really think the funky interaction comes when a mobile group is damaged, as that is *far* more likley to occur.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Right the bugaboo is when an escort on a group is crippled. Currently cripples must go into the static forces at the planet with the most PDU's (I believe most PDU's). So if you cripple an outer escort does that force the CV and all other assigned escorts into the static forces? I know in the past I have played that it breaks the group unless you want to move the whole CV into the static forces. This has come up with wanting to use RCR on inner escorts.. the problem being of course that the crippled inner escort goes to the static group.

But Ted's question/concern still exists.. suppose you do not have FF's or anything to match your EFF's or even more likely suppose you have some MEC's where you crippled the inner escort.. so you drag into 1401 a pair of [CVS (MEC)FKE] and you do not have any other MEC's or CM's to match then you by one rule must put both cripples in the static forces, and by another rule must put one in each group (you can be forced to do this in several ways). Now you are in the unenviable position of deciding how to handle things.

Perhaps the best way to handle things and also likely the most reasonable is to say.

Cripples that are part of a legal group are not required to be in the static element by 511.52 until all units in the group are crippled and/or destroyed.

This would allow crippled ships retreating into the capital hex, as well as ships escorts crippled during battle to not retire with the cripples as other ships. This seems reasonable.. its not unheard of to keep a CV group with crippled escort(s) on the line.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - 09:20 pm: Edit

Michael, that's not the case.

If you retreat into the hex say 3 EFFs and there are no other FFs in the hex, then you do your best to balance the mobile and static sides, but you could be in a situation where all will be in one group or another due to group status. That's allowable since you divide by type "as evenly as possible" and if there is no other way to do it than to have all in one pool or the other, well then that's the breaks. You'll have to compensate for it by putting smaller compot ships in that same group to even out the total overall compot between static and mobile.

Though your proposal would avoid the impending cheese of crippling the other escort of say a CVA group just so you can strand it in a system you don't come back to (example). Maybe say if more than half of the group is crippled, but this is not the place for such proposals.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 08:58 am: Edit

Robert,

Perhaps it is how you say.. I am unsure, but its certainly not trivial. The rule says your first priority is to split the ships by type as evenly as possible. I can see how your saying once a group is formed up it might force you to split it 3 to the static and 0 to the mobile force but it isn't obvious that is allowed, perhaps your forced to jettison the crippled escorts?

There is also the case where the attacker offers a second approach battle. This causes the split to be recalculated into mobile and static which could cause problems.

For the moment I think your interpretation is the best as it avoids the situation without a need for rules changes.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Question about captured ships.

When an interned ship becomes captured because a future beligerent entered the war (or in the case causing the question Orion Enclave rejoined the feds) is the ship just considered an uncrippled captured ship?

In the normal case of capture the ship is crippled, but in this case since the ship never was in battle, I assume that it remains face up and does not need to be repaired to be nativized.

Am I assuming correctly?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 04:43 pm: Edit

Michael

It was ruled sometime ago - the ship would require 3 Ep's to be conveted to be useable by the new empire.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Q305.23. Question regarding captured ships.

Say you capture a ship. Is it possible to repair that captured ship at a BATS (or field repair) on turn 1 and then perform the native conversion on turn 2? The rule seems unclear.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Paul, I don't think that was mike's question. I think the question is whether the formerly interned ship needs to be repaired. I think it does not. Clearly, it needs to be nativized for the 3 EP conversion.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 12:01 pm: Edit

But, you can by definition only capture a crippled ship which was destroyed. Check out 302.60 where you technically apply damage one ship at a time, and you always cripple the ship first, then decide if you want to destroy it. Rince, lather repeat.

But it is still an interesting question, since the ship in question never saw combat. Or maybe it did, but is abstracted in the capture from internment.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 06:46 pm: Edit

Question for FEAR.

When using theatre transports to setup a MB if one or more is destroyed you only get partial credit in groups of 1/3. If say one of the TT's is killed meaning your 2/3rds complete.. can you next turn assign another 3 TT's to the task even though you only really need 1? This would be of course so that it takes 3 rounds of directing to stop the MB setting up.

It seems reasonable to assign MORE ships to the job in a logistical sense.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, December 10, 2010 - 01:07 pm: Edit

A question has come up in two games that I am in about how POLs are placed. By the rule, you must place a POL into a hex that is in supply from the Main Grid (531.12). But the problem is, how do you determine if a hex is in supply? The supply rules are very specific that they deal with units, not hexes (410.1).

My position is that the POL must be placed on a Supply Route (411.0), since by defiinition a valid supply route consists of hexes that are in supply. This to myself makes the most sense, as before the POL is placed there is no Unit in said hex, therefore there is nothing to trace supply to. And Supply Routes are very clearly always hexes in supply. My opponent's position is that the POL may be placed in any hex that is adjacent to a valid Supply Route, which would be the same as if one was trying to determine supply to a Unit (411.1 seems to support this to a degree). But, since the Police Ship rules (531.0) do not prohibit the placement of a POL into a hex that contains ememy units, if we use this position, then it becomes perfectly legal to place POLs into hexes that contain only enemy units, which both my opponent and myself agree should not be the intent of the rule.

So, which interpretation is correct, and why? Thanks!
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, December 10, 2010 - 03:38 pm: Edit

FEAR, would you tell Jean how far through this topic you have progressed so she can delete a few thousand old posts?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, December 10, 2010 - 11:44 pm: Edit

In regards to POL placement. I am the one on the other side of the argument.

Firstly I will point out that the problem with POL placement is that the language for POL placement states that the hex the POL is to be placed into must be in supply. Sounds very reasonable until you realize F&E NEVER defines a hex being in or out of supply.

Robert states supply route hexes are in supply, but by the letter of the rules they are not as a hex being in supply is never defined.

My argument then becomes if ee can answer the question "What is meant by a hex being in supply?" then we can know how to place a POL. There are two rules involved here, one about a unit being in supply and the other what a supply route is. My solution is to take the rules on a unit being in supply and apply them to a hex. To that end I am quoting the appropriate rules with Unit being replaced with hex.
________________________________________
Quote:
(410.1) Which units are in supply?
A hex is considered to be in supply if it has a "Supply Route" to a "supply point"...


(411.1)Definition
The Supply Route is a chain of no more than six hexes, not including the hex the hex is in but including the hex containing the supply point (412.0).
________________________________________


Italics indicates the change from unit to hex. The only real difficulty being the oddness of "the hex the hex is in" which comes from "the hex the unit is in" but taken in context one could simply have substituted "Destination hex" for "hex the unit is in" because the point of the supply route rule is just to point out that the route proceeds from a supply point up to 6 hexes but does not include the hex the unit is in.

So one can also reword "the hex the hex is in" with "the destination hex" and now the substitution makes perfect sense and now we have a notion of what "a hex in supply means" it is exactly the same as when a unit is in supply.

Robert points out that this would allow one to in some situations consider a hex that is enemy occupied to be in supply (and hence eligible for POL placement). This is an anomoly from the supply rules because during combat a unit in a hex with enemy units can still be in supply. A simple fix for "hex in supply" would be to add that a hex that contains enemy units can never be in supply.

This is the simplest way to translate the rules we have to figure out a hex in supply.. just replace unit with hex and deal with the one problem of a hex controlled by the enemy.

It would also boil down to this simple rule of thumb for POL placement.

A POL may be places in any original territory hex where it would be in supply provided that the POL is not required to open supply to the placement hex.

That is what I believe the spirit of the POL placement rules are.

Alternatively I think then we need to errata and give a defintion in the supply rules for a hex in supply.
By Mitchell Land (Toadkillerdog) on Saturday, December 11, 2010 - 10:07 am: Edit

Kzinti Setup

In getting ready to setup a game, I just noticed that the Marquis' fleet has carriers with CLs for escorts. Should those actually be CLEs or are the indeed pressing CLs into service as escorts?

*EDIT* Never mind. Just noticed the fine print at the bottom of the setup. Note to self, read when eyes not tired.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, December 13, 2010 - 09:55 am: Edit

Q411.1 How is supply defined for a hex itself? This question is important for determining whether a province generates income, whether a POL can be placed in the hex, and possibly other issues.

The above question is a variation on the questions asked by Mike and Rob with regards to the POL, but this is a fundamental question that needs its own answer.

Note that the rule doesn't actually define whether a hex is, itself, in supply - but rather only defines a supply route.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, December 13, 2010 - 09:58 am: Edit

Q411.1 Can an enemy ship in hex A block supply for empty adjacent hex B? If a friendly ship is in hex C, also adjacent hex A, is that empty hex now in supply?

This question is a follow-up to the question I posed above as to how you define supply for a hex. Again, the question of whether an empty hex is in supply is important for determining POL placement, income generation, etc.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, December 13, 2010 - 11:08 am: Edit

Q420.61 Does the use of an Engineer Regiment (541.34) repairing SIDS on a base reduce the cost by 5 pts per Eng Unit under (541.31)?

Note: This is arguably a construction project for the Engineer Regiment in much the same way it reduces the cost of a base upgrade (541.33-D).
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Q542.26 Can the 3 EPs for the Survey Infrastructure slot be paid over multiple turns?
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 09:08 am: Edit

If it can't be paid over several turns, why not just save-up the cash on your balance sheet?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 09:38 am: Edit

You can use a Survey Cruiser to build a colony on map, or you can use it to build a colony off map if you have the required number of provinces at the start of the colony's construction. That gives you three turns inwhich to pay for the survey slot so at the end of the colony construction you can put the Survey Cruiser on survey duty or use it in high risk survey.

The survey slot costs as much as a frigate. If I have 1 EP left over I might want to start the survey infrastructure slot then rather skip a frigate build to pay for it all at once when I intend to use the Survey Cruiser to build the colony before actually going on survey duty.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 02:26 pm: Edit

You *could* just set the EP aside each turn (i.e. spend it on paper), and when you have 3, bingo you have your slot.

Unless you're worried about spending the EP during the turn,maybe?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 02:28 pm: Edit

I'd rather spend it when I have it so I don't forget about it later.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 03:10 pm: Edit

also you cannot use deficit spending for a survey slot. So you have say 1.5 ep left after builds.. you apply 1 ep to a survey slot then spend 4 to field repair a CC. Now you are at -3.5. If you had saved the 1 ep you would now just be at -2.5.

Now I have no idea if you can partially pay for one or not.. but there is a reason to pay when you have the cash in your hot lil hands rather than just save up for it.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Turtle,

Unless you are the Lyrans who have a Survey Ship Tug you cannot use a standard Survey Ship to build a colony you need tugs. Unless of course there has been a major rules change to Colonial development that I missed!

Now you could do on-map survey with a survey ship while you wait to buy the survey slot.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 09:04 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 04:57 pm: Edit

CL37 Rulings

THE COSTS OF THINGS
(446.13) COLONIES: Change cost from 2+2+2 to 1+1+1. Also, a survey ship in the colony hex (doing nothing else) eliminates the cost (not the time) from any one of those three turns. (Always takes three turns, but might cost only 2 points.)
________________________________________


The way this is worded does lend to the view that a SR can build a colony if it is doing nothing else while reducing the cost from 3 EPs paid over 3 turns to 2 EPs paid over 3 turns at the rate of 1 EP per turn.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Colonies can also be built using a tug, two LTTs or a civilian or military convoy. 446.12
By William Stec (Billstec2) on Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 07:00 am: Edit

Or an Engineer for no cost.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 07:54 am: Edit

3xDWT or 3xFFT can do the colony thing
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 08:56 am: Edit

Turtle,

Wow nice I have read that many times before and just gravitated to the cost reduction to 1+1+1.

With that said... in no way does that ruling say a Survey ship can build a colony. If a colony is being built in a hex, it says a survey ship can go there and do nothing else and reduce the cost by 1ep.

Now I might be wrong, but I suspect the reason you need a tug of some sort is because you need construction and carriage capabilities for colonial development. It makes sense a Survey ship can help by finding natural deposits of useful materials on the colonial target or close to it. But a Survey ship doesn't do the construction portion nor carriage that tugs do.

Thanks for the ruling... one more reason to build survey ships for on-map duty.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 08:58 am: Edit

I'm just saying that the ruling lends to the reasoning that a Survey Ship can do that. In truth I wouldn't use a survey ship for that purpose except for a couple of very limited circumstances which in my experience don't happen in every game.
By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 09:35 am: Edit

Does a Federation CVL still count as a survey ship?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 09:59 am: Edit

Yes Terry it does. See (542.12) in Strategic Operations.
By James Lowry (Rindis) on Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 11:26 am: Edit

In fact, the counters in newer versions of F&E (2K4 and 2K10) have the white scout diamond of a survey ship.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, December 20, 2010 - 07:21 am: Edit

Q537.131. May a commando raid during the raid phase suppress a rebellion?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, December 20, 2010 - 07:34 am: Edit

Q437.21. Is the conversion from Romulan FH->SUB a minor conversion? There are arguably actually three conversions here; FH to NH (2 points) to SUP (2 points) to SUB (2 points). However, FH to SUP is a 3 point, 2-step conversion. Also, SUP to SUB is a 2 point conversion. Thus, I say you have a "2-step" conversion of FH to SUP (3 points) and then SUP to SUB (2 points). Each is minor, so the whole conversion is minor. Also, the SITS note that the conversion from FH to SUB is a 5 point, two-step conversion. Under 437.21, although the cost is 5 points the conversion is considered "minor" because each sub-conversion is less than three points, and thus the FH->SUB conversion may be performed at any starbase. Please confirm or deny.

[edit] Caveat: On the SIT, the NH to SUB conversion is listed as a 4 point conversion *without* the two-step indicator. Thus, arguably, FH->SUB would be a major conversion. However, I think this is an error on the SIT that should be corrected, given the above.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, December 20, 2010 - 09:00 am: Edit

The conversion question is likely best done in the SITS topic. But it might be nice to get a FEAR ruling.

Here is the issue as I see it. Are you allowed to do THREE conversions in a 2-step conversion. I do not believe you are.

In the case of FH on one side and SUB on the other. There are multiple things happening.

FH=>NH
NH=>SUP
SUP=>SUB

or

FH=>NH
NH=>SUB

The first path requires three minor conversions.. or a 2-step FH=>SUP then SUP=> sub. The second is a single 2-step conversion however because NH=>SUB is major the entire conversion is major.

Nowhere does 2-step conversion allow one to do three or more conversions. You do two conversions. I believe its incorrect to try and claim since FH=>SUP is a legal minor 2-step conversion that it is legal to then pair it with SUP=>SUB and then try and 2-step again. You got your benefit once already with the first 2-step conversion. Such a claim is obfuscating the issue with technicalities. If you were allowed to claim the chain FH=>SUP SUP=>SUB as a 2-step conversion then the cost would be. 3+8 (the cost of FH=>SUP) then 2+16 (the cost of SUP=>SUB) minus 1 for 4+24++(minor). However the FH=>SUB shows as 5+24++.

The correct chain for the 2-step conversion is
FH=>NH 2
NH=>SUB 4+24

for 6-1=5+24 as is shown in the SITS.

As for the NH=>SUB not being two-step that is CORRECT. NH=>SUB is a direct conversion in fact a CVA conversion I believe but I admit to being a bit ignorant on the intracacies of ROM CV's and their vagaries. But whatever it actually is it is NOT a 2-step conversion as well its only one conversion.. and more importantly its not a conversion first to a larger ship (both NH and SUB are the same hull) so in no way would it qualify as a 2-step conversion.
By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 - 11:20 am: Edit

Q412.22 Can a tug acting as a supply point (presumably with other ships in the hex) use withdrawal before combat if attacked? Can it use cloaked evasion?

Per rule 412.22, a tug acting as a supply point (509.1-D) cannot move by any means. However, it has been ruled here previously that retreat does not count as 'movement' and thus is legal despite 412.22. While logically it would seem this applies to withdrawal before combat and cloaked evasion as well, this would also mean getting a shot at a tug supply point is near impossible.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 - 11:26 am: Edit

Patrick,

Its pretty much impossible now. Since a Tug acting as a supply point can require an approach battle. EVEN if it cannot withdraw/cloak evade (not sure on your question if it can). It can require the approach round then retreat afterwards. I suppose a Supply Point Tug all by itself could be caught. Otherwise all you can do is push it back one hex. This is ignoring situations where you can surround it and such.. I mean placement with some forethought.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 - 12:25 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
However, it has been ruled here previously that retreat does not count as 'movement' and thus is legal despite 412.22.
________________________________________
Please cite ruling.

While I'm geographically displaced from my rulebook, I'm not sure that is correct. I believe if a tug acting as a supply point is forced to retreat it loses its supply point status.

Would someone cite that rule for me?
By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 - 12:34 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 10:24 am:

What are the limitations on retereating a tug that is acting as a supply point?

412.2 says that a tug acting as a supply point cannot move by any means during the player turn. Then says if it is 'forced to retreat' it loses it's supply status. As far as I am aware a retreat is always voluntary and I can't see anything that allows it to abandon it's supply mission.

ANSWER: You can always choose to retreat the tug (giving up the supply status). Also, a raider could "force a retreat" on the small scale combat chart. Retreat is not strictly defined as movement, it is a function of combat.
________________________________________


I was aware that supply status was lost, I was simply referring to avoiding both losing supply /and/ getting the tug pasted for the effort.

(edited for clarity)
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Does anyone know when the rule was changed that says the Coalition can't attack the Tholians until turn 10? It used to be turn 7 IIRC. What was the logic behind this?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 06:29 pm: Edit

Paul, CL38 Q&A

The Turn 10 ruling is only for the Lyrans. The Klingons can attack the Tholians anytime they wish to do so. But until the Tholians are destroyed the Federation gets to go to limited war as I understand (654.0) and (602.4). Unless they are at war already.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 07:18 pm: Edit

But that cap log predate F&E 2010, where it was apparently changed (603.16). I don't know why.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 07:29 pm: Edit

I think I see what happen there Nick. It looks like it was suppose to be a marker for the Romulans and Lyrans (if the Klingons had attacked the Tholians earlier) to join in on an assualt on the Tholians.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 07:42 pm: Edit

I don't recall changing anything in that regard.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Could be, the Klingons can attack the Tholians on turn 7, and the Roms and Lyrans can attack Tholians turn 10. That would make sense given the previous rule set.
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 10:23 pm: Edit

603.16 in F&E 2010:
"The Coalition may not attack the Tholians until turn # 10."

If this is not correct, I'd like to know. Technically I would have liked to know, but would still like to know for next game. That would change some of my thinking.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 10:29 pm: Edit

The Klingons can attack the Tholians on any turn they wish. However if they attack the the Tholians on a turn before they attack the Federation, The Federation goes to Limited War. Releasing the 7th Fleet, allowing EPs to be accumulated and spent as desired under the Limited War Rules. And allows the Federation Home Fleet to manuever into a more advantageous position.

Just because you start with the normal GW scenario, doesn't mean you have to stick to the history of when empires were attacked. Just remember there are consequences for everything you do.

The Lyrans and Romulans are limited to when they can attack the Tholians, but I think the Romulans, if they were really agressive, could attack the Tholians anytime they wanted. A serious bribe by the Klingons might entice them into making such a move.
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Thomas,

Where is this spelled out in the rules? I'm in favor of it. It would mercifully open up Coalition strategic options. I hope you're right, but I'm doubtful that the rules support this.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 11:20 pm: Edit

start with the Grand Campaign Rules and the Free Campaign Rules.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 11:30 pm: Edit

(603.16) Tholians: The Coalition may NOT attack the Tholians before Turn #10. (F&E 2010 RB pg 116)

(604.151) says that if the Tholians have not been attacked by Turn #22 they become Alliance limited partners. (F&E 2010 RB pg 119)
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Thomas,

Well, in a Free campaign, yes of course you're right. I'm not talking about that.

I don't see anything to support what you say in the General Scenario or Grand Campaign rules. The only information I see about this is rule 603.16 which seems definitive.
I've looked for a rule allowing me to attack the Tholians on turn 7 from the moment I decided to play the game. I think I remembered the turn 7 thing from the '90s version. As near as I can tell, this rule has been changed to turn 10.

I hope I'm wrong, because it might actually make sense to attack those extra-galactic jerks on turn 7, but turn 10 doesn't really work.
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 12:01 am: Edit

Another rules question:

My SPBs carry 8 fighter factors, are medium carriers, but are not an oversized squadron by AO 318.8.

I assume this means the SPB does NOT count as an oversized squadron, and so you could put two on the line for instance?

Does this mean they could send their fighters forward like the Flatheads can (i.e. in groups of larger than 6 factors)?

What does this represent in SFB terms. Does the SPB carry a different kind of fighters?
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 12:33 am: Edit

An old Q&A I read in the new compendium stated that escorts can only be adjusted at the beginning and end of the combat phase, and so ships un-escorted at that time are vulnerable to special raids on the following player's turn.

I cannot find a change to this anywhere in the 2010 rules. Is this still the correct interpretation?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 05:43 am: Edit

Paul, according to 600.2 the coalition (Klingons) attacked the Tholians on Turn 11 (Fall of Y173). While you can play the Grand Campaign (Historical General War) you have the option as the Klingon player to delay attackign the Federation until Turn 10 if you like. The Federation can attack the Klingons on Turn 11 if they like. The Klingons are free to attack the Tholians on Turn 2 if they like and I suppose they could attack the Tholians on turn 1 if they really wanted to. Just remember that each choice here has consequences that can affect the outcome of the game.

The SIT does not say that the SPB is an oversized squadron so while you can put 3 SPBs in a battleforce you would be limited to 18 fighter factors max without using a command slot. Of course you can use one slot to use all 24 and given the Romulan battleforce density it might not be so bad to do so.

There is no change when carrier groups are formed or adjusted under (515.0) Flexible Carrier Groups and in the Sequence of Play (105.0). The major changes to carrier groups are that flexible carrier groups is base game rule and that CEDS is replaced by GEDS. Thus the out of phase retrogrades for "damaged" carrier groups is no longer allowed.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 07:02 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
"The Klingons are free to attack the Tholians on Turn 2 if they like and I suppose they could attack the Tholians on turn 1 if they really wanted to. Just remember that each choice here has consequences that can affect the outcome of the game.
________________________________________


Thomas,

Please cite the rule number for this, that is part of the Grand Campaign.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 07:35 am: Edit

The TBS is released under (601.2).
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 09:06 am: Edit

(601.2) does not allow the Klingons to attack the Tholians. In that rule you will see thing like

"Lyrans are not required to attack. Kzintis may attack if the Lyrans do not"

One cannot find anything like that for the Tholians.

It is sure seeming that the Tholians cannot be attacked until turn 10 which does NOT seem right, but I can find no enabling rule until turn 10 and then there are several rules all regarding the ability of either side to attack the Tholians.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 09:15 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
The SIT does not say that the SPB is an oversized squadron so while you can put 3 SPBs in a battleforce you would be limited to 18 fighter factors max without using a command slot. Of course you can use one slot to use all 24 and given the Romulan battleforce density it might not be so bad to do so.
________________________________________

I do not believe that is legal. You are limited to 3 fighters squadrons in a battleforce. If you used 3xSPB and tried to form them into 6 6 6 then (2+2+2=6) and use a command slot you would be using 4 attrition squadrons.

The way to get more FACTORS into the battle is. Special squadrons (like many Fed squadrons) Heavy Fighters (8H) some SWAC stuff, and oversize squadrons.

I won't cover all those rules but in essence the best thing to do with the SPB is to bring one squadron in as 8 and another in as 4 (you are allowed one line CV to hold back half its factors) and then you can have 2x6 factor squadrons. Then either use an independent squadron of 6 or a SUN/FAK. 2xSPB and a SUP holding back half its factors would also work.

The Rommies have some logistical difficulties with min-maxing fighter factors because of the odd squadron sizes.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 10:00 am: Edit

SPB question: awww Rats. MP your right. I forgot about the 3 attrition squadron limit.

(601.2)the TBS is released on turn 2. There is no requirement that you have to send it anywhere. As the fleet is now released you could choose to leave it in the Tholian Border deployment area and attack the Tholians early as an option.

edit:

I'm not saying this is the wisest course of action, but with the fleet being released it could chosen as a course of action.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 10:15 am: Edit

Thomas,

How is the release of the TBS related at all to attacking the Tholians.. Especially since along with its release is the east fleet taking over the entire Thol border area?

The TBS being released means it can attack anyone the Klingons are currently allowed to attack. One certainly wouldn't say that TBS released allowed the Klingons to attack the Hydrans, but other than the name of the fleet there is no reason to suppose it could attack the Tholians than one could suppose it could attack the Hydrans. I certainly get the impression that the release of the TBS is special rule that reflects more of a "Well •••• the Lyrans attacked the Kzinti instead of the Hydrans as we planned, so our hopes of expansion towards the Tholians is on hold.. so we can send these ships to help with the Kzinti and have the east fleet hold the border here"


I agree something seems messed up here. I also thought the Klingons could attack the Tholians, in fact I have engaged in several discussions about the wisdom of a "Kill the Hydrans then Assault the Tholians" strategy which would require attacking the Tholians turn 6 (or more likely 7 along witht he feds).

So while I agree I believe the Klings are allowed to attack, or should be allowed (and I believe its turn 2 also).. but I do not believe the release of the TBS is what's needed. Either we are missing something, or a rule got dropped. Or its possible its never been the intention to allow a Klingon attack on the Tholians before turn 10 and we have always been wrong.
By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 10:20 am: Edit

Thomas:

601.11 "...The Klingon squadron on the Tholian border (the so-called "Harassment Squadron") cannot raid or attack the Tholians. The Klingons cannot occupy neutral zone hexes adjacent to the Tholians until they are at war with the Federation." That can't happen until turn 7.

602.11 puts Tholian territory in play, so they can attack them then if they wish (turn 7).
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 10:22 am: Edit

Thomas:

Even by your assertion that release of a border fleet allows attack on the bordering empire, the rules still do _not_ allow the Klingons to attack the Tholians on turn 2. Under 601.2 for turn 2:

"Tholian border squadron is released and can move by strategic movement. The deployment area of the TBS is added to the Eastern Fleet."

On turn 2, the Tholian border becomes part of the Eastern Fleet zone and, since the Eastern Fleet is not released until turn 7, your reasoning would not allow offensive operations against the Tholians until that point.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 10:27 am: Edit

I seem to recall a previous discussion where it was specifically decided that the earliest the Tholians could be attacked was turn 10.

I cannot for the life of me remember when or where that was. Or even what edition that was decided for. But I do know that as I started reading this discussion, I was operating under the assumption that the earliest turn of attack was turn 10.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 10:29 am: Edit

Adam seems to have found it. 601.11 and 602.11 seem to put this to bed. You can attack the Tholians Turn 7.
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 10:59 am: Edit

I think we need a ruling don't we.

603.16 "The Coalition may not attack the Tholians until turn 10."

602.11 "All Klingon forces are available and can move in Klingon, Federation, Kzinti, Lyran, Tholian, and Hydran space." (turn 7)

Which is correct please?
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Thomas Mathews wrote:

"The SIT does not say that the SPB is an oversized squadron so while you can put 3 SPBs in a battleforce you would be limited to 18 fighter factors max..."

So rather than being an advantage, the SPB not being an oversized squadron is a disadvantage. Should have guessed that. The Romulans certainly needed some more nerfing. So the same is true of other Romulan "seemingly reasonable" carriers like the VLV I guess.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Pablomatic,

It is worth a ruling, but since the Scenario where 603.16 is given starts on turn 10 I *THINK* (Dangerous I know) it means coalition empires other than the Klingons who are allowed beginning on turn 7. So basically on turn 7 the klinks can go it alone, on turn 10 the entire coaltion can dogpile.

Thomas,

Yep the odd size of Romulan CV groups mean you have to undergo the administrative headeache of keeping certain combinations together if you want to make full 18 fighters in a battleforce. Not sure I would call 8 a disadvantage though.. the pain of having to plan ahead is probaly made up for by having extra Fighters for reserve purposes, as well as the SPB is a pretty nice CV raider with 8 factors.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 01:22 pm: Edit

Just pointing out on the SPB, NOT being oversized, allows you to use 2 SPB groups on the line (and say a SUP). If it was oversized, you get two full other squardons in - but couldn't use 2 x SPB's.

So - you gain some and lose some!
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 01:51 pm: Edit

But if the SPB were oversized I do not think you would be overly upset about using SUB + SPB to get 20 fighters in!

And you could still get 2xSPB groups(if oversized) in if you wanted.. one brings 8 and the other brings 4. You only bring 12 FF that way but its better than mustard in chicken salad!
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Q603.16 602.11 When can the coalition attack the Tholians?

R603.16 602.11 There is some potential conflict here, but (603.16) is general where (602.11) is specific. So, only the Klingons can attack the Tholians on turn 7 or later. The other members of the Coalilition must wait for turn 10.

This is subject to change when I get back to where my rules are, but this is what I have always believed with my previous research on the subject. And those that know me know I know how to attack the Tholians as the Klingons.

When I get back to work on Monday I will be catching up on some Q&A. I had not done any lately as SVC had plenty to use for this last issue of CL and we didn't want to confuse the issue. I will get caught up during this next week.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 04:30 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
R603.16 602.11 There is some potential conflict here, but (603.16) is general where (602.11) is specific. So, only the Klingons can attack the Tholians on turn 7 or later. The other members of the Coalilition must wait for turn 10.
________________________________________

WOW! This is HUGE. It opens a whole world of strategic possibilities not possible before. I'd have completely changed my strategy, actually.....

I'll have to seriously consider this one next time.
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 08:33 pm: Edit

Agree with Ted. This is important.

Strangely enough, I researched this heavily when I started playing because I wanted to attack the Tholians turn 7. Turn 10 just isn't as attractive. Now that it's turn 13 it turns out I could have.

Now, don't make the mistake of thinking this will *help* the Coalition. A win is still absolutely beyond their capabilities. But at least the Coalition can lose in a new and novel way now!
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 10:25 pm: Edit

It appears that (602.11) is a rule that was missed. Although it does say "within the limits of other rules."

602.2 F&E2K: The (Federation) 7th Fleet is released ... if the Coalition invades the Tholians. - This was deleted in F&E2010.

602.48 F&E2K: "If the Coalition invades the Tholians without going to war with the Federation... " was changed in F&E2010 to "If the Romulans go to war with the Federation, the Federation may, at its option, go to war with the Klingons..."

603.16 F&E2K: "The Coalition may attack the Tholians if it has not done so in the previous scenario." changed to "The Coalition may not attack the Tholians before Turn 10."
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 10:56 pm: Edit

Actually it seems it was possible...just was garbled in its original translation.
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 11:29 pm: Edit

The Klingon DWB heavy scout carrier is available in Y175 according to the SIT, but heavy fighters aren't available for the Klinks until Y178. What gives?
Same situation with D5B that's available in Y176. Apparently I can deploy a few heavy fighter carriers before heavy fighter general introduction?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, December 24, 2010 - 12:53 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
602.2 F&E2K: The (Federation) 7th Fleet is released ... if the Coalition invades the Tholians. - This was deleted in F&E2010.
________________________________________
I knew something was missing -- I just thought I couldn't recall the location of the reference.
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Friday, December 24, 2010 - 10:17 am: Edit

312.45 says an SFG unit in "single combat" is hampered by this rule.

I assume that if an SFG unit is in small scale combat, but has two consorts, then these penalties don't apply and the SFG can freeze targets normally.

The question is, how do you resolve damage in SSC then? Does each frozen ship take only "1 casualty" to destroy?

How does this work please?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, December 24, 2010 - 03:14 pm: Edit

RE: SFG in SSC

Remember SSC has two die rolls:
A. One by the attacker's offensive compot on the defender's defensive compot; and

B. One by the defender's offensive compot on the attacker defensive compot.
If the SFG ship freezes a unit, the frozen unit cannot use its offensive compot. There is no provision for "directed" or double casualties; the frozen unit simple has zero offensive compot to offer which affect his die roll under (310.2).

Rule (312.45) applied under the OLD Single Combat rules (and before the addition of Advance Small-Scale Combat rules (318.7) in AO). This rule (312.45) will need to be updated when Combined Operations is updated.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, December 24, 2010 - 04:48 pm: Edit

RE: Coalition attacks on the Tholians

I emailed SVC and he confirms: Klingons on 7 or later, the rest on 10 or later.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, December 24, 2010 - 08:59 pm: Edit

PaulE, (530.223) has a note that certain carriers (CSV/ACS) CAN be built before the the heavy fighter intro date (which are more for converting 'normal carriers' over to heavy fighters)...
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Saturday, December 25, 2010 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Thanks Stewart.

Actually, I don't see a note to that effect in 530.223 in the 2010 rules though. I suspect you're correct but this got left out of the new rules?
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, December 25, 2010 - 07:45 pm: Edit

Paul, (530.223) was updated in CL36. The rules for (530.0) Heavy Fighters themselves were in both Fighter Operations and Advanced Operations. The duplicate publication of the rules resulted in 2 slightly different versions being published. This was corrected by the CL36 rule (530.0) Heavy Fighters.

A copy of which can be found here
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Monday, December 27, 2010 - 08:54 am: Edit

Thanks Thomas,

I wouldn't have known this if you hadn't told me.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, December 27, 2010 - 09:10 am: Edit

Questions Downloaded to this Point
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 09:06 pm: Edit

453.12 in SO says that OPBs can have a repair module in one of the positions. I can't find a cost for a repair module.
What is the cost of a repair module?
What repair capacity do they grant (I assume 2 more points of repair for a total of 4)?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 09:37 pm: Edit

Repair modules haven't been added to the game yet.
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 10:07 pm: Edit

Thanks Ryan,

Nuts.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 08:52 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
What repair capacity do they grant (I assume 2 more points of repair for a total of 4)?
________________________________________

OPB do not have any intrinsic repair capability.. your post suggested you thought they had 2 points.. they do not.
By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Michael,

Then 453.32 is incorrect?

453.32
"Special: An Operational Base has two repair points."
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Ummm errr *shifty eyes* you lie!

Wow thanks Pablo I did not know that till you pointed that one out! Makes OPB even more attractive!