| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 06:30 pm: Edit |
January - Febuary 2003
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 09:05 pm: Edit
Are independent fighter squadrons able to retreat and, if not, do they block pursuit if other units can retreat?
An attacking fleet is passing by. A defending fleet reacts off a BATS into the passing fleet. As part of the defending fleet, the BATS's fighter squadron reacts as an independent unit. The battle goes poorly and the defender wants to retreat. The defending ships are allowed to retreat, there are no defending bases in the battle hex, and the defender's slow units, if any, are allowed a slow retreat, but what happens to the independent fighter squadron? Fighters aren't ships, so they can't retreat with the ships. Fighters aren't bases, so they don't fit under that rule. Fighters aren't listed as slow units either, so apparently they can't retreat. Is this correct and would they block pursuit, as a base would?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 10:50 am: Edit
Fighters go home after each round so if they're independent units from another hex they just go home, and if independent from the same hex they go back to their carrier and IT retreats.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 12:38 pm: Edit
Scott, I don't think anything changed the rule on prohibiting free fighters for auxes.
John, Since the MB cannot do repairs, you need to use the field rate and a repair ship. The base rate assumes you are at a base that is repair capable.
Tony, RE: (519.4) doesn't specify the deployment of monitor pallets.
Can they be purchased and not placed on a monitor?
ANSWER: The rule says they are similar to tug pods, so I would assume you could store pallets in supply grids like tug pods.
Can they be placed on a monitor & later moved to a different monitor?
ANSWER: sure
Is there any tug requirement (or is it dedicated staff doing the moving)?
ANSWER: same as tug pods, freely move within a supply grid.
Is there any pallet limit for monitors (1 per turn, 1 per year, etc)?
ANSWER: I am unaware of any limits.
Can fighters from a monitor pallet react out of hex (as base fighters can)?
ANSWER: Sure.
Can free fighters be used for a monitor pallet? (519.42) doesn't prohibit it, but it says they are at the base rate (432.22). 432.22 also doesn't prohibit it. However, from (431.74), bases & PDUs can't use free fighters. There is no direct prohibition of free fighters, but it could be argues they can't be used for monitor pallets.
ANSWER: Rule (519.42) last sentence specifically says that free fighters CAN be used.
Nick
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, January 04, 2003 - 03:10 pm: Edit
Hey Nick,
Always been curious. I know the Fed Starbases have 4xFighter modules for their 12 fighters, then later they get F111 modules for 18 F-111 factors. But why is their no representation of the A-10/A-20 Squadron that Fed SBs started to carry around 181?
Thanks Nick.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 04, 2003 - 10:40 pm: Edit
How is a double fighting retreat handled?
Defender declines first chance to retreat.
Attacking Fleet fighting retreats into a defender held planet with a defending FF & two PDUs with fighters/PFs.
Defender Second chance to retreat: Defender then chooses to use a fighting retreat into that same hex where the Attacker's fleet also did the same.
Please layout the major options for both players - thanks.
(Blame Grant -- he's trying to follow my fleet with this action!)
Ouch!
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:27 am: Edit
Chuck, first, no retreat is done until after the defender's second option as the last sentence of (302.712) notes that if both retreat, the defender retreats first. So the defender would reach the planet first, -then- the attacker goes through his retreat options.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 02:12 am: Edit
Thanks Stewart.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:14 pm: Edit
Nick/Jeff:
So that I more clearly understand the issue above...
First the players announce their intention to retreat, if they both choose to retreat, then:
1. The defender conducts and concludes all his retreat actions which might include a fighting retreat. Then...
2. The attacker conducts and concludes all his retreat actions which might include a fighting retreat.
So there is no chance that both players have to conduct a simultaneous co-retreat-hex fighting retreat due to the above sequence?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:45 pm: Edit
It is possible, but it takes a bit more unusual circumstances.
Here is a possible example:
Turn 2, no Kzinti BATS on the Klingon border have been destroyed.
Kzinti and Klingon forces are in hex 1604 (a pinning battle).
The Klingons have a pair of F5s at the BATS in 1605 and have attacked the minors at 1506 and 1504 in force.
There are no Klingons in hex 1505.
The Kzinti (defender) declines the first retreat option.
The Klingon announces retreat.
The Kzinti accepts the second retreat option.
The defender, Kzinti, retreats first (302.72).
The Kzinti is adjacent to three supply points (1504, 1704, and 1605), but there are Klingon forces in two of them. (302.734) will force the Kzinti to hex 1704 unless a Fighting Retreat is chosen. So, the Kzinti retreats to 1605, knowing that the two F5s are no match.
The Klingon then has two hexes, each 2 hexes from a supply point: 1505 and 1605. (302.734) forces the Klingons to 1505, unless a Fighting Retreat into 1605 is declared.
In this case, under the rules posted earlier by Steve, the Klingons will only be able to fight an approach battle at BIR 0 and then retreat again.
The Kzinti can decline the approach battle and hide under the guns of the BATS, or accept the approach battle at BIR 0 and have to retreat again.
New battlehexes aren't resolved until after both sides have made their retreat moves.
By David Johnson (Djj) on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 12:29 pm: Edit
So what do you do if both sides use fighting retreat to retreat into a hex without any base-like units?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 05:19 pm: Edit
I don't know if it is possible for both sides to use fighting retreat to the same hex. Would be a very weird situation.
If it did happen, I would guess both sides fight at BIR 0 and retreat again... Or I suppose you could mutually agree to skip the new battle and just retreat the second time, as the BIR 0 essentially means you are trying to avoid combat and if both sides are doing that...
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 11:06 am: Edit
Quick Question, Vanilla F&E:
The Klink OOB has 3 3CV's on it. The CVT group I think.
The Klink OOB also says that they only have 2 CV pods. Do they have 2 cv pods to use for independant carriers or am I missing something?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 11:38 am: Edit
The pods in question are separate from the permanent CVT conversions.
By David Johnson (Djj) on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 01:03 pm: Edit
So let me see if I'm clear on this...
If both sides use fighting retreat rules to retreat into the same hex without any base-like units present, they would both fight one round at both at BIR 0, then by the fighting retreat rules both must retreat again (thus not allowing for any pursuit by either side).
Is this correct?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 03:14 pm: Edit
David, sure, sounds good. Although again, I think it would be rare for both sides to use fighting retreat to the same hex.
RE klingon at start CVTs: Also note that unconverting them to tugs is free, and you lose the "pods". Someone was concerned that I implied this cost EPs by the term "welded on", which is not true, they can dump the pods (destroying them) for free.
Another note, Joe has posted the master errata file online at:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/erratfne.html
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 09:19 am: Edit
OK, a question on the Romulan OOB.
In their Home Fleet, they start with 3 SPCs. In the rules, section 603.15 states they convert 3 SP to SPC at no cost. Are these those SPC, or would I get to convert 3 more?
Thanks!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 01:53 pm: Edit
Note that the three home fleet SPCs are listed in the PWC (Pre War Construction) section. They are indeed the same three SPCs converted for free on turn 9. You get three, not six.
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 - 11:14 pm: Edit
I did look at the online erratta and did not see the Klink CVT's mentioned.
By Jeffrey T. Coutu (Jtc) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 08:23 am: Edit
Nick,
I noticed that the errata in CL 21 on page 16 is not included in the online errata dated Nov 27 2002 (the errata on page 87 was included). For your reference I believe that the (511.321) errata in CL 21 was replaced by the errata in CL 22 page 101.
Also, the Aug 31 2002 10:06 pm note dealing with the Hydran supply tug has not been added to the online errata.
Question:
Could you explain the following errata: "(302.212) Use this text as (302.232)."?
I think it means to use the (302.212) text. However, I think the (302.232) text is clearer and I am not sure I see what the mistake in the rules is. Basically, I am asking if you could point out what the error was in the printed version the rules.
Thanks,
Jeff
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 12:58 pm: Edit
I dont have my rule books with me so I need a silly question answered...
can you use deficit spending to buy command points?
To clarify, we are engaging in a battle over a SB, I want to use 2 command points which I had, he wanted to use 1 command point which he had. We did 5 rounds of battle before we noticed that he was using 12 ship fleets (using 2 command points). If he can use deficit spending to buy a second command point then we will keep the first 5 rounds of battle results. If you cannot, then we will redo the first 5 rounds of battle.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 01:27 pm: Edit
A question about the Federation 7th fleet.
If the Klingons in invade, and do not destory any SBs on Turn 7, or Turn 8, is the 7th Fleet released on Alliance T8, or not until Turn 9? The rules say 2 turns after the initial Klingon invasion, which would imply Turn 9, but Turn 8 Alliance is two active Federation turns. Which is correct?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 03:04 pm: Edit
When is a province deemed captured? Can a ship move through an empty province during Op Move and capture a province, then continue moving out of that province, invoking 430.24?
Example:
A Kzinti FF moves into Klingon province 1408, and no Klingon ships are in the province. That same Kzint FF, on the same Op Move, then moves back into 1407. Is that Klingon province affected by 430.24?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 10:31 am: Edit
Do monitors count for a garrison of a captured planet?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 11:27 pm: Edit
Weird, I answered some of these questions the other day, but my post never posted. Must not have hit the button when I thought I did. Oh, well, here goes again.
On the errata items, it seems a few got missed, I will get these into the next revision.
On (302.212), I am not sure why it says to replace one rule with the other, they essentially say the same thing. The only thing in the second rule being replaced that is not in the earlier rule is the last bit about fighters, which as far as I know is still valid since the first rule refers to (511.5) which has the same fighter bit in rule (511.572). In either case they seem to say the exact same thing and the rule seems pretty clear on what is going on though. The errata may be just to emphasize that they are indeed saying the exact same thing, and by making them identical may be trying to avoid any (incorrectly) perceived differences caused by different wording. So there is no error, but it is making them identical (as was intended) to avoid any perceived differences.
Jimi LaForm: I believe you can only buy a free command point in the production phase. That is how the new (Advanced Ops) economic forms are set up. The have expenses for stuff at the start of the turn, and during the turn, and the extra command point is only at the start of the turn.
Robert:
1) Rule (602.2) specifically says the 7th fleet is released on the "2nd Federation Player Turn after...invasion. So if the Klingons invade on coalition turn 7, the "2nd Fed turn" would be Alliance turn 8, (Alliance turn 7 being the first Fed turn after invasion).
2) Ownership is generally judged after movement is complete (or at the end of each player turn), so simply flying through an unoccupied province does not capture it. Neutral Zones are of course, an exception. For more, see (438.2) in carrier war.
3) Sure.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 11:36 pm: Edit
Nick, I'm looking at the F+E Errata.
This line strikes me as odd.
(516.32) The Klingon D5G can only perform LTT missions D (supply), F (move FRD), H (carry economic points), K (deliver PDUs), or M (normal operations) or N (Marines).
So that means:
No Battle Pod (Mission A)
No Carrier Pod (Mission B)
No deploying MB (Mission C), which is not suprising, which marine would want to deploy a lowly MB.
No Repair Pod (Mission E) which is not suprising, which marine would want to guard a crippled ship.
No Drone Pods (Mission L)
I'm just wondering on all the restrictions of why it can't carry BPs and CV Pods, really. Because it REALLY hampers a D5G on isolated planets, by not carrying a BP/VP3.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 10:28 am: Edit
Is there a limit on the number of Romulan modules that can be produced? I seem to remember reading somewhere that one can be produced per SB, if that SB performs no other conversions.
Also, after paying the 1 EP plus any other charges to build, does 1 EP need to be spent every time I want to changes modules?
Is there a limit on the number of C modules that can be produced?
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 12:33 am: Edit
Nick,
Can Slow unit retreat (302.742) pass through hexes containing both friendly & enemy units?
Section C says the slow units require a valid retrograde route, but the retrograde rules do not address the situation where a hex contains both friendly & hostile units (persumably because this situtation is impossible in the retrograde phase).
This is important because if slow units cannot pass through contested hexes, all one must do to kill a group of slow units is to surround them with frigates and force them to retreat (in this instance one does not even need to fight the slow unit battle).
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 09:30 am: Edit
Do monitors count against battle force limits?
I had always thought that they were treated as ships but I saw a comment the other day (that I can't find now) that seemed to indicate they were being treated as bases.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 10:46 am: Edit
Scott Tenhoff: I don't know why that errata was written, but that is the rule, so...
Robert Padilla: See rule (433.432), it explains everything. If for the modular conversion you are paying for (building) the modules themselves at the time of conversion, it counts as the one allowed "normal" conversion for that starbase. If the modules were already built and are simply being moved from storage to the ship, then the starbase can do three of these types of conversions, and these do not count against the starbases "normal" converison limit. So a starbase can do one "normal" conversion that can be a regular ship or a modular ship that you are building the module for, and in addition to that one normal conversion, it can do 3 conversions to modular ships if the modules already exist from a previous turn.
John Smedley, as far as I can tell, you cannot retrograde through a hex with enemy units, even if there are friendly units. The fighting retreat rule says to use the retrograde rule so...
Edward Reece, Monitors always count against command limits. See rule (519.21) and (519.22). They are only treated as a base when they are at a planet and only for purposes of approach battles. If the enemy gets past the approach battle, they must be included in the battleforce, and they count against the command limit.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 11:15 am: Edit
OOops, I seem to be illiterate this morning.
Deleted by me.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 12:03 pm: Edit
Nick
The reason I brought it up is that the retrograde criteria are very similar to the criteria for supply (I believe they are exactly the same except for the case where units of both sides reside in the same hex). Supply is evaluated at the time of combat, so it has a specific rule dealing with the "contested occupancy" - supply can be traced through a hex containing enemy units if the hex also contains friendly units. Prior to the introduction of slow-unit retreat, there was no instance where units of both sides could occupy the same hex during retrograde, so no similar clause was needed. I feel this may be an oversight. Could you please seek further clarification from Jeff/SVC? Thanks.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 01:32 pm: Edit
Another question about Romulan modules. The rules say they can not be used by two ships in the same turn. Does this mean I could not remove modules from one ship, and place them onto another ship during the economic/conversion phase, or is that a limit to changing modules during Operational Movement?
By Stephen Rasmussen (Razman) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 04:22 pm: Edit
This discussion of slow units in a fighting retreat does bring up an experience I recently had. The hydran fleet (mostly cripples) was retreating from the capitol after it had finally fallen. I think the hydrans had 7 un crippled ships remaining. They did still have some slow units, a lav, and 2 sav's. the lav and one of the sav's had escorts, also crippled. As the capital was surrounded the hydrans were going to have to conduct a fighting retreat, although the hex they retreated to had a single lyran FF in it.
We conducted the normal pursuit round (losing the crippled battle tug in the form bonus), and the slow unit pursuit (losing the lav and its 2 crippled escorts), then fought the retreat battle, 7 uncrippled hydrans against a single lyran FF. the frigate died. the hydrans lost their last 2 fighters.
The 7 uncrippled hydrans did not include the remaining hydran sav's as they were empty. it did include the hydran tug with the fcp, although it was also empty.
1. Was it legal for the hydrans to bring along their slow units on this fighting retreat.
2. After the hydrans destroyed the lyran FF, could they retreat a further hex? or is everything now resolved? (the hydran forces are now the only ships in that hex. there is a further empty hex that the hydran forces could move to that is in supply.) the hydrans are retreating towards their remaining starbase on the lyran border.
By David Lang (Dlang) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 04:31 pm: Edit
if the capitol is surrounded no hex they move into would be a fighting retreat.
you can never be forced to do a fighting retreat, it's only when you look at what heses you are allowed to retreat into that the retreating player gets the option of either a normal retreat to an allowed hex, or a fighting retreat to a hex that would be allowed if it wasn't for retreat priority #4
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 05:01 pm: Edit
The problem with slow unit retreat as it now stands is that if the capitol is surrounded, then all of the slow units die without a fight. There is no valid retrograde path out of the capitol, since they all contain enemy units (though some hexes likely also contain friendly units, this is irrelevent according to Nick's ruling).
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 05:02 pm: Edit
There might be a problem with the slow unit retreat rules, as it seems that you can't retrograde through a lyran frigate.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 08:44 pm: Edit
Robert Padilla: You cannot use the same modules on two ships on the same turn, whenever you change them, you cannot do either. So during op move you cannot remove modules from one ship and place them on another on the same turn. And during the production phase you cannot remove modules from one ship and place them on another in the same turn. If you could do this, then you could swap carrier modules on one ship on one border with scout modules from another ship on a different border (since the modules get to move through your supply grid for free), thus essentially swapping a pair of ships over a large distance without strat move penalties.
Stephen Rasmussen. If you are surrounded and forced to retreat to a hex containing enemy units, it is NOT a fighting retreat, it is a regular retreat that forms an all new battle hex. FR is only used if you have a choice between hexes that are empty and contain enemy units and you choose to go to the one with enemies, then it is a fighting retreat. Also, if you were surrounded then there was no retrograde path and the slow units should have automatically been destroyed after the slow unit battle, in fact the klingons didn't even need to send any units to fight at the slow unit battle as the slow units would be automatically destroyed afterward. The only thing the Klingons get out of the slow unit battle is the possability of those ships being damaged.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 05:48 pm: Edit
For anyone who did not see the addition to the Q&A Archive file, see this rules change for non-mauler shock ships making them more worthwhile (scroll to the very last posting):
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/197.html?1042843049#POST64249
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 04:02 pm: Edit
Under the new rules can the Klingons convert D6's to D6S in addition to the 1 substitution per year? Or are they limited to 1 per year by any means?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 04:12 pm: Edit
703.4 Other: One D7D can be produced per turn by any means. No more than one C5 can be produced in any given year by any means. Fast Warship production is limited by (525.12). D6S production by any means is limited to one per year until Turn #7, then one per turn.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 11:44 am: Edit
Nick, can a captured Kzinti DN be converted to a CVA by the Lyrans, if they can't build their own CVA?
Thanks.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 03:56 pm: Edit
Nick, I thought the rules prevented you from converting captured ships into carriers. Is that right or wrong?
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 04:43 pm: Edit
Question about command points.
IIRC command points were (are going to be) supplanted with admirals. If so can you still buy command points or are they totally out of the game when using admirals?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 05:34 pm: Edit
Chris E. Fant, see rule (305.45), you can convert a captured ship into anything the original owner could, except mauler, tug, carrier, so CVA is a no go.
Advanced ops will replace the free one per turn points with admirals, but I belive the at start stockpiles that some races have, and everybody's ability to buy them for EPs is still there. See Advanced Ops to be sure though...
Nick
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 05:37 pm: Edit
Nick is right on command points. Admirals replace the "one free one per year" and you still have the stockpiles and the ability to buy one.
By Jonathan Dean (Nightshade) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 05:58 pm: Edit
When do the Hydran forces need to setup? (601.162) says that they don't need to be setup on turns 1 and 2, but doesn't really say when in turn 3 they must be deployed (although logically it would have to come no later than the begining of the Alliance portion of turn 3).
Looking at the entry points for other races don't help much. The Federation and Romulans get setup before they are typically drawn into the war, but both of these events occur on the Coalition half of the turn. On the other hand, the Gorn are setup before the Coalition portion of the turn by (603.2), which is the only other race which enters war on the Alliance half of the turn.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 10:19 pm: Edit
Hydrans set up between the Coalition and Alliance turns of Turn 3.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 11:42 am: Edit
It seems as a general rule you can produce smaller ships in place of larger ships.
Is it reasonable to assume that a ship can be substituted if it costs less then the ship it is replacing on the schedule?
the reason I was asking is mainly for the Romulans I was wondering if I could build a BH in place of the WE, but I was also thinking of replacing CA production with CW's if money was tight.
By Michael Benson (Michaelbenson) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:41 pm: Edit
Except that if you build a Lyran CA instead of a BC you then get to convert it into a DN. Same thing for the Romulans sub a SP for a WE and then convert it up to a FH, NH, SUP etc. Generally it might make sense but in reallity players will pervert a generalized rule.
I think a recent Captains Log (#25??) had a list of allowable downgrade substitutions.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:29 pm: Edit
Hey, a question on the Hydran Old Colonies Fleet.
It says that it is released if a SB is destroyed, or the Homeworld is attacked.
Is there any clause for it being released in any other circumstance? For example. Alliance Turn 7, no SB destroyed and Home world not attacked.
What if you get to turn 10?
Just curious, as it is possible that it sits there forever.
By Jonathan Dean (Nightshade) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 10:16 pm: Edit
Old Colonies Fleet is released on turn 7 if not released before that. (602.13) says all Hydran fleets are released, no exception is made for the Old Colonies.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 11:38 pm: Edit
ooo.......missed that. Thanks Jonathon.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 12:22 am: Edit
Edward, you can only do substitutions allowed by the race's substitution list or SIT. You cannot just do any one you want because it is a smaller ship. Captain's log 24 had a bunch of downgraded substitutions.
Jonathan got the Old Colony question.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 06:11 am: Edit
If the Feds are activated on turn 6 by a Klingon incursion into the Marquis, what build schedule do they use? The Spring 172?
I know the PWC has all of that except there is 1 extra FF and no CA hull in the PWC.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 09:49 am: Edit
OK, this is going to sound a little odd. During a capital assault, let's say the Hydran capital, there are three devistated planets with RDUs, and the three majors are fine. The Coalition come in and attacks each minor. The Hydrans decide not to fight at the minor planets. Now, according to the rules, the Coalition can rack up plus points at those three minors, after killing the RDU, which counts as a unit. This could be used as a way to avoid pursuit from a capital or other multi-system hex, as who would want to fight into 30+ plus points during pursuit?
I can not find anything in the rules that makes this illegal, though it certainly should not be allowed. The only time plus and/or minus points can't be carried is if the planets had no units or other defending units in the battle. The RDU clearly counts as a unit, heck it can even cause a fighting retreat. Is there something I'm missing in the rules? I've checked 308.2, including 308.25, and 511.5, in which 551.551 allows the selection of the devistated minors in my example.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 10:38 am: Edit
Note (508.26) which says the RDU does not count as a PDU for any purpose. This means the RDU is not really a "unit" in the usual sense despite it's name, all it does is make a planet with no PDUs absorb a few more damage points to redevestate, and it prevents you from recapturing a planet with a unit that does not have offense potential, like a convoy.
Note (308.25) last sentence, if there are no defending units then there are no plus or minus points accumulated, so if you go to redevestate an undefended planet (which would absorb 13 pts, 3 for the RDU and 10 to redevestate a planet), you do not count any plus or minus points from that battle.
Just remember, the RDU is not a unit. Nowhere is there a rule that says the RDU is a unit (other than its name which is misleading), it is actually also called a residual defense factor or residual defense force in various places.
Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 10:42 am: Edit
Also, look in rule (102.0) for the definition of UNIT, it says units are fleet elements (ships) including bases and PDUs, the residual defense force is not mentioned, it is not a unit. It is not listed in (756.0) either, which lists all non-ship units (and if the RDU were a unit it would certainly be a non-ship unit and thus in (756.0). It is not there, so it is not a unit.
Nick
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 11:13 am: Edit
Can Fighters, from an inactive fleet, react out of their deployment zone, to react to ships in adjacent hexes?
Example: (Craig's doing this to me, no big deal, but it brought up a question)
Klingon hexes 1707+1708 are North Fleet hexes, I have ships in 1807 from the East Fleet.
BATS 1707 gets jumped by Kzintis. Can my fighters from a FV+D6V/CVT react from 1807, to 1707?
I know my ships can't, but can the fighters?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 06:40 pm: Edit
A few months ago, I asked on this Q&A whether a RDU was a unit and SVC himself replied that a RDU is indeed a unit.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 07:22 pm: Edit
G.O.D. spoke to you?
What was it like man?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit
Um, yeah? You asked if a RDU is a unit, if a fighter is a unit, and then some stuff about blocking supply.
Steves response to all of that was simply the phrase: "residual defene unit". Not sure what that means, and I don't see anything else where he says it is a unit...
I still don't think it counts as a unit for purposes of counting plus/minus points from battles with no other defending units.
Do you want to appeal, and if so why? Is there any pressing reason an RDU needs to be a unit? Do we need the plus points to be generated for these undefended planet battles? It is really just an additional defense factor so you can't send something with no attack potential to retake a devestated planet...
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 05:57 am: Edit
I have a LAD and two normal drone ships in my support echelons.
Am I limited to 12 Drone bombardment, or can I use the full 14?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 08:10 am: Edit
What Todd is referring to is from August 1, 2002, based on a question I asked if a RDU counts as a unit to require a fighting retreat. The following was the question:
"Klingon (or any other race) forces retreat from a battle hex. They have two hexes open to them for a valid retreat. One of those hexes contains a devistated planet with RDU. If the Klingon ships retreat onto that planet, would it be considered a fighting retreat?
The rules clearly state that an RDU never counts as a PDU. That would seem to eliminate retreat priority #2, as it clearly calls out PDUs, but an RDU is still a unit. Also, looking at priority #4, there are more Klingon ships than "units", and going by that it should not be a fighting retreat. "
And the response:
"ok, in step 2, it's still a unit, and it counts.
In step 4, it's still a unit, and it counts.
You could do a fighting retreat, and by the wording of the rules you'd have to fight the RDU (which you would probably kill and which could not hurt you) and then you'd have to leave the hex so the RDU would magically re-appear."
So, what I don't get is why can it sometimes be a unit, and sometimes not? I feel that it either should always be a unit, or never be a unit and therefore should never be able to casue a fighting retreat.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 08:59 am: Edit
Nick: send me a case file on this and I'll dig into it. Keep it to a page but cover all the bases.
Robert: It would be nice if things were always one thing and not another, but the nature of the beast is otherwise. There are any number of things in F&E that an "element" might or might not do (move, react, retreat, be a supply node, conduct ground combat, etc.) and any given kind of unit does some of them and doesn't do others.
I haven't studied this and will wait for the case file. Such things are critical as to look at one rule may overlook other rules that bear on the issue. (Such happened with that delayed CEDS thing; nobody noticed another rule that clearly said no multiple retrogrades.) My instant analysis is that an RDU cannot cause a fighting retreat as it has no way to influence anything not actually landing on or shooting at the planet, but there may be some rule somwhere that says it does.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 11:41 am: Edit
Ok, will generate a file.
Nick
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 04:33 pm: Edit
Ok
Annex 753, listst Hydro Starting income @ 74
I add up the components and get 68.
-----------Prov-Min--Maj
On map----11---2---1 = 31
Off Map----2---1---2 = 16
Capitol-----0---3---3 = 21
-------------------- 68
Is there an eratta to this table I'm missing?
Thanx
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 04:50 pm: Edit
Minor Planets are worth 3, not 2.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 09:36 pm: Edit
Can a wounded PT be somehow disolved rather than 'healed'? Is there a way to eliminate them as a self kill for zero points?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 10:35 pm: Edit
Lawrence: Nope, you can either heal it to use it or leave it wounded....
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 11:37 pm: Edit
I see my work is done here...
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 11:40 pm: Edit
See guys.....you are stealing Nick's thunder. DON'T do that
By Dave Fowler (Davefowler) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 11:47 pm: Edit
Several questions for ya to answer if you could please.
1. When liberating a captial, do the defenders (who used to be the attackers) setup as a normal capital attack. E.G. the kzinti attack their capital worlds where the klingons are. Do they split there forces (klingons) and the kzinti desginate which planets their attacking etc.
2. If as part of a retreat there is a tug towing a frd, does the attacker pick both birs (in the advanced option) or does the tug because it exists allow the defender to pick his bir?
3. Retreat question. If there was a battle in hex 1701, and the kzinti had to retreat, could they go to hex 1801 or do they have to go off map? (assuming no ships around, and 1801 is a partial supply spot etc..)
Thanks.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 11:55 pm: Edit
1) The defender is the current controller of the system, and the attacker is the one trying to take (or retake) the system. So in your case the Klingons have the mobile/nonmobile forces, and the Kzinti form battle forces for each system, designate which planet they are attacking, etc..
2) The tug allows that player to pick his part of the BIR.
3) Off map would be a shorter supply path (path of 0 hexes, whereas hex 1801 has a supply path of 1 hex). And generally you are required to go to a retreat hex with the shortest supply path, which includes off map.
Nick
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 09:00 am: Edit
OK, I know that if you transfer 6 fighters to a CVB, they 'magically' become 8 factors. Do the fighters on the CVA work the same way? I'm thinking they do, but can find nothing in the rules to support it. And if they are, does that mean one squad on the CVA is 6 factors, and the other is 9?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 09:39 am: Edit
removed, in wrong topic.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 10:38 am: Edit
I guess I should clarify I'm talking about the Fed CVA and CVB. Sorry for any confusion.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 01:23 pm: Edit
Transferring fighters to a Fed CVB doesn't create factors, 6 don't become 8. Rather, it improves density: 8 factors (1 1/3 squadrons of F-18s) from other carriers become 8 factors (1 squadron of F-15s) on the CVB.
So, you have 3 CVBs on the battle line, and they lose their 24 fighter factors (3 squadrons). Then 4 NVLs can transfer their 24 factors to the CVBs, and the 4 squadrons of 6 factors are now counted as 3 squadrons of 8 factors.
The Fed CVA has 1 squadron of F-14s (8 factors) and 1 of A-10s (7 factors).
The Fed SCS has 1 squadron of F-18s (6 factors), 1 of F-14s (8 factors) and 1 of A-10s (10 factors).
The Fed CVA and SCS work the same way as the CVB.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 08:07 pm: Edit
Hmm.....then when does the "magically becoming the better type" come into play.
On a CVB you have 12 fighters.
On a NVL you have 12 fighters.
I had always assumed the 12 fighters from the NVL transferred to and became 12 fighters on the CVB then "magically became the other type".
You don't have any more fighters, but they are the better type. It's not like the CVB carries 16 fighters or anything.
By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit
When your sqaudron size goes from 6 factors to 8 factors. The "magical change" is from the SFB persepctive, where F-18s are becoming F-15s. From a purely F&E perspective, the CVB is juast a carrier with 8 fighter factors and a rule that says they count as one squadron versus your three squadron limit (which is how F&E covers the superiority of an F-15 squadron).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 11:22 pm: Edit
true. I still think that the 8 EP surcharge should get ya something though.
Ah well.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 05:25 am: Edit
Nick, I think you missed my question.
I have a LAD and two normal drone ships in my support echelons.
Am I limited to 12 Drone bombardment, or can I use the full 14?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 07:41 am: Edit
Dave, the AO rule changes the DB limits as follows:
(318.13) BOMBARDMENT: ... The limit (309.2) on the total number of bombardment factors is changed (for all races) to three platforms (i.e., three drone bombardment ships) rather than a set number of factors. A tug with two pods counts as one platform.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 07:46 am: Edit
Hmmm - LADs suddenly look a lot more useful, at least, when defending SBs...
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 08:10 am: Edit
and it is free!!
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 09:55 am: Edit
Can the Fed's capture the neutral zone hexes adjacent to Gorn space prior to the Gorn entry into the war?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:55 am: Edit
Here's an interesting one:
Can a tug tow more than 1 FRD during strategic movement? Example:
a TGA on 1716 is assigned to tow an FRD mission. It strats one to 2318, which is 6 hexes away. Can it then strat back to 1716, pick up the other FRD, and bring it to 2318? The rules only say the FRD itself can move a max of 12 hexes.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:57 am: Edit
One more quickie:
Can the Romulans enter hexes 4009, or 3909 if not at war with the Gorn? I can see 4009 being under the neutral territory rule, but 3909 borders the Feds too.
By Kent Wendel (Huskerfan) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 04:07 pm: Edit
Can the Lyrans enter Neutral Zone hexes 0805 & 0905 on turn 1? If not, can anyone tell me where this restriction can be found in the rules? I'm starting a Solo F&E and seem to recall there being a restriction here, but I cannot find it anywhere in section 600...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit
Most of those are the same question...
Jimi, prior to the Gorn entry, they are considered a future belligerant, and as such rules (503.4) and (503.61) prohibits anyone from entering their territory or NZ hexes.
Robert, A tug can only move ONE FRD per turn, whether operationally, strategically, or whatever. See rule (509.1) which says a tug can perform ONE of the following missions, and mission F specifically says it can be used "To move an FRD", the word "an" meaning its one mission can be to move one FRD, not move several FRDs.
Because 3909 borders Gorn space, it falls under (503.61), so it is essentially off limits until the Gorn enter the war or until the Roms are cleared to attack them by scenario rules.
Kent, They cannot enter those hexes on turn 1. Again, see rules (503.4) and (503.61), remember that the Klingons are pretty much considered Future Belligerants on turn 1.
Nick
By Kent Wendel (Huskerfan) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 09:40 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick!
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 11:19 am: Edit
Couple O quick Questions:
Is the modification to the lyran build schedule to 4xCW, pushed back to F&E 2K, like the Zin mod was?
Can the Coalation react off of their Border bats on turn 3?
1) Of course
2) Only after 1 Bat has been attacked
3) nope
Thanx
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 11:28 am: Edit
Is the modification to the lyran build schedule to 4xCW, pushed back to F&E 2K, like the Zin mod was?
SVC: YES.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 01:19 pm: Edit
Bret, not sure what you are asking for your reaction question there, are you asking about the base's fighters, or ships, or what? Which border are you talking about, all of them? Are you asking about the Hydran entry interaction with Coalition units?
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 02:18 pm: Edit
Ok.
Scenario 601 The Wind:
Turn 3 Alliance: Coalation fleets get released when the Hydros attack.
Assume the Hydros are attacking Klink Bat 1214
There is a "picket" force there of 58 SE's.
If this is the 1st Coalation base attacked; can the klink fleet react into the NZ to Pin the Hydros off of the Base?
If no, what if it was the 2nd base attacked?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 03:59 pm: Edit
This is covered under (503.61) with the rules on Neutral Zones. A race can only enter neutral zone hexes if at war with or allied to the other race. If the Hydrans enter the Neutral Zone hex of the Klingons or Lyrans, they have two choices:
a) Declare War
b) Accept Internment
If the Hydrans choose (a) then the Coalition can react. If they choose (b), something's wrong with this picture.
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 01:16 am: Edit
Thanx Jeff
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 07:36 pm: Edit
If a ship is retrograding into neutral territory (503.12) (specifically into the territory of a future ally), is the neutral zone between an enemy and the future ally automatically considered a valid hex for retrograde?
In other words, say the Hydran expedition reaches within 2 hexs of the Fed NZ after combat, and say the ships are eligible for retrograde. They can retrograde the 1 hex toward the NZ without a problem (they are adjacent), but can they retro into the NZ (Klingon BATS fighters technically adjacent, but not allowed to react - Fed BATS adjacent but not yet allied)
Second question:
If a ship is in supply during its first combat in the combat phase, but later (in the same combat phase) finds itself in a combat in which it is not in supply, is it eligible to retrograde? 410.24 says it must be in supply at the time of combat, but this criteria is ambigious if a ship participates in multiple combats in a given phase.
Thanks Nick!
By Javier D Benvenuti (Javierb) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 01:32 pm: Edit
Nick,
Question about the the Tholian Harrasment F&E scenario in Captain's log.
How does the Convoy interact with Tholian bases? The rules say it is not behind the Bases web, but it is not clear whether the Convoy is co-located by the base (but not behind it's web) so that Base could be included in the battleforce or if the Convoy is in open space.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 02:00 pm: Edit
Hey, where can I find the restriction on the D5G. I know it can act like a LTT, but has restrictions.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 02:15 pm: Edit
F+E Online Errata.
Here:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/erratfne.html
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 04:25 pm: Edit
What are the EW points for:
LAS
SAS
Hydran PGS
All the online errata says is "see AO", and there doesn't seem to be anything in the AO topics that cover this.
By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 04:28 pm: Edit
SVC posted in General Discussions about the LAS and SAS. Remember, AO is due out at the end of the month.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 05:03 pm: Edit
LAS 3, SAS 2, PGS 2.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 01:18 am: Edit
Cool. Thank you.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 10:16 am: Edit
Javier, I believe the convoy cannot be with a base at all, as if it is with a base then the web rule is in effect, and the CL rule says it cannot be benefit from web. The reason is that there is nothing in the web rule to allow for one location with some Tholian units in the web and some out of it (it assumes everything is protected by web), so the convoy would have to be a separate location from the base for the web to not apply (as the scenario rule requires).
Nick
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 12:54 pm: Edit
Nick - you did notice my questions above Javier's, right?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 01:57 pm: Edit
John, sorry, missed that one.
In the first part, if I understand the example correctly, I believe you can do so. Rule (503.12) would override the prohibition (for that neutral zone hexe) against retrograding through a hex adjacent to the Klingon ship equivalent of fighters. So the first hex you can retro to because you are adjacent to it to begin with, the second hex you can retro to because it is a neutral hex. You could not ignore Klingon units to go through other normal hexes to get to the neutral hexes though.
For the second question, I would say if you were actually in supply at the start of combat, you get to retrograde. Note that the rules do say that if you can start combat in supply, then end up (probably by retreating) out of supply, you can still retrograde, so I would think you can start the first combat actually in supply, retreat out of supply to another combat, and then still retro also.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 02:06 pm: Edit
Thanks. Fed space, here I come
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 02:18 pm: Edit
Whoa........
I thought you said that if you are out of supply at the end of combat you cannot retrograde?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 02:21 pm: Edit
Let me clarify one thing, you cannot string together the two exceptions in the rules.
1) If you are in supply at the start of op move, you are "considered" in supply for combat even if the combat hex is actually out of supply.
2) If you are in supply at the start of combat, you get to retrograde, even if you are actually out of supply at the start of the retrograde step.
3) BUT, if you are in supply at the start of op move, but then move out of supply at the start of combat (but fight without penalty due to 1 above) and out of supply at the start of retrograde, you cannot retrograde. You cannot combine 1 and 2 above.
See?
By Dana Madsen (Danam) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 02:21 pm: Edit
Nick, when can you start answering AO questions?
Specifically on annual fighters, kzintis finish rebuilding their shipyards on a spring turn so they can begin production in the fall. Would they receive half their annual free fighters on the fall turn, like a race that entered the war in the fall, or would they have to wait until the next spring for a full years supply of free fighters.
Dana
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 02:24 pm: Edit
Now John was talking about multiple combats, so I said if you are actually in supply at the start of the combat phase, the number of combat hexes doesn't matter if you move out of supply during them, you can still retrograde.
But, if you were not actually in supply at the start of the combat phase (just considered in supply due to start of turn conditions), then if you are still out of supply at the start of retrograde, you cannot retrograde.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 02:26 pm: Edit
Dana, I can do so with certainty when I get my staff copy of the official final AO rules, which won't be till they ship them to staff which is usually done when they ship to warehouses (I think). So it should be before you guys get your official final real copies from mail order or stores.
Until then I can answer based on the files I have on my hard drive, but I would be reluctant to do so since there might be last minute changes I haven't seen.
Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 02:33 pm: Edit
Actually for a unit in multiple combat hexes, I would think if it was in supply for at least one of those hexes, then it can retrograde, it doesn't necessarily need to be the first one.
So (for example) you could start in supply, op move to the first combat hex (which is out of supply, but ther is no out of supply fighting penalty since you started the turn actually in supply). Now normally if you start the retrograde phase out of supply in these circumstances you could not retrograde since you were not relly in supply during the combat step.
But say instead in this situaton you retreat from that first battle hex to a second battle hex that is in supply. Then you retreat again to a hex out of supply. I would think in those circumstances you could retrograde, since you did get resupplied for real during the combat step, and rule (410.24) says "at the time of combat", it does not say when during combat, so presumably anytime during the combat phase.
Everyone confused yet?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 02:44 pm: Edit
So basicallly, if you end comabt within 6 hexes of a supply point, with a valid supply path, you can retrograde. Right?
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 03:48 pm: Edit
Chris - the criteria you stated is sufficient, but not necessary. You need only be in supply (actually in supply) at some point during the combat phase, not necessarily at the end.
Nick - I understand (this is how I've always played it), but it is quite complicated. Perhaps an example in a Cap. Log?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 04:29 pm: Edit
Ok, an example for poor dumb me
If the Feds are in combat at 1202 in Kzin space, having started out the turn in supply, and thus in supply for movement, but not in supply at the start of combat,
can the Fed retrograde?
By Michael Benson (Michaelbenson) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:10 pm: Edit
Chris, no you cannot retrograde, but you fight without penalty because of being in supply during the movement phase.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:13 pm: Edit
Thanks Mike, but I need to hear it from Nick
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:15 pm: Edit
Quick Q: Senario 601.
What is the "latest" the Hydros can set up?
Before turn 3, or after turn 3 Coalation, before turn 3 Alliance.
Thanx
By Michael Benson (Michaelbenson) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:15 pm: Edit
But...Nick what if I am in supply for op move...out of supply in the combat hex.(can't retrograde if I stayed there) but I retreat into a hex that is in supply? Is the retreat still in the "combat phase" thereby lifting the can't retrograde? We have always played with supply being evaluated at the op move step and at the START of the combat phase, not AT ANY POINT in the combat phase.
Might have been a wording change in the rules in 2k that I am unaware of or we have been play wrong for years. I don't have my rulebooks with me.
By Michael Benson (Michaelbenson) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:19 pm: Edit
Chris I figured as much...I was hoping to have my second post done before you guys jumped in. I was trying to transition into his ruling about getting into supply in the middle of the combat phase in his 2:33 post.
Nick has already answered your question though. See #3 in his 2:21 post
Bret, don't want to steal Nick's thunder but it is after coalition turn 3
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 05:49 pm: Edit
What is the new ruling for the Lyran to sub a CW for a CL ....is this dead now or you can do the CL for a CW....and what rule book had the new ruling for it
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 07:44 pm: Edit
Remember that all these retro answers assume there is a valid retro path to a valid retro point.
"So basicallly, if you end comabt within 6 hexes of a supply point, with a valid supply path, you can retrograde. Right?"
Yes, that is correct. Regardless of what happened during or before combat, if you are in supply at the start of the retro phase, you can retro (within other rules of course).
"If the Feds are in combat at 1202 in Kzin space, having started out the turn in supply, and thus in supply for movement, but not in supply at the start of combat,
can the Fed retrograde?"
No, if you are not actually in supply for combat, and you are also not in supply at the start of retro phase, then you cannot retrograde.
"Quick Q: Senario 601.
What is the "latest" the Hydros can set up?
Before turn 3, or after turn 3 Coalation, before turn 3 Alliance."
The Hydrans normally set up after Coalition turn 3 and before Alliance turn 3.
"But...Nick what if I am in supply for op move...out of supply in the combat hex.(can't retrograde if I stayed there) but I retreat into a hex that is in supply? Is the retreat still in the "combat phase" thereby lifting the can't retrograde?"
You can retrograde. Remember, you must be EITHER in supply for combat, OR in supply at the start of the retrograde phase (which would be after the retreat), or both, in order to retrograde. So if you retreat from combat to a hex that is in supply, you can retrograde regardless of what has happened before.
"We have always played with supply being evaluated at the op move step and at the START of the combat phase, not AT ANY POINT in the combat phase."
Yes, and that is how I always played before, however my concern is that now with more ways for units to participate in multiple combat hexes in the same combat phase (e.g. fighting retreat), your supply status can change during combat, not just before combat and after retreat.
So in other words, since the original rule allowed you to be supplied for retro purposes either 1) at the start of combat or 2) after retreat, I think it makes sense to allow it also during combat, since that would be like resupplying closer to the retrograde phase than situation 1).
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 07:51 am: Edit
Nick,
I would like the Status of Supply at any Point in Combat for Retro purposes question confirmed by SVC please. I think you're right, but I may be starting a new game soon and would like it confirmed sense it was not covered (and probably should have been) when fighting retreat was added to the game.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 09:24 am: Edit
Another interesting point that I am not sure has been covered. What if you start the combat phase out of supply, then retreat into supply, and then get knocked out of supply because a different battle puts you out of supply again, either because the enemy destroyed a base (by reacting onto it) or retreated to block your path.
Its a bit convoluted but very possible.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 03:56 pm: Edit
Nick,
Can the Hydrans replace the AHs on their schedule with CUs, or must they be replaced with HNs?
The SIT says that an AH can be substituted for a HN, but can be converthed from either FF.
Thanks
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 05:31 pm: Edit
Q:
The coalation are attacking a HW system.
The mobil defending fleet has been shot up.
The coalation builds a trash line, while attacking a system only defended by PDU's, 1-2 Fighter-less PDU's intact.
Dials a BIR and directs on the non-pdu planet(s), for 20 damage a pop, devistating them.
Then Pull out a God line, support it with Drones, compot 140's+, Dial a BIR 8 + var.
Let the damage fall.
Little PDU's take their 3-6, the planet takes another 10 from it. Leaving around 30+ points.
The coalation then depart the planet.
Do they get the 30+ points in Pursuit?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 01:00 am: Edit
308.8, SIDS.
If a BATS has 2 SIDS steps nad 3 fithers left, the enemy does 7 points of damage is the defender required to:
A. destroy 3 fighters and the attacker is at +4?
or
B. Defender has to loose 3 fighters and take the 3rd SIDS to cripple the BATS?
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 07:58 am: Edit
JS: From (431.73), "a Hydran AH is replaced by a HN not a CU".
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:27 pm: Edit
Nick
Can I get a answer about a Lyran CL can or cannot be sub for a CW....Is it a old rule that you can and is it dead now that you can sub a CW for a CL now....All I got is old rule books and I see on this site that you can do it and other places you can ... Can you tell me which rule I need to go by ...
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:37 pm: Edit
You can sub a Lyran CL for a Lyran CW once per turn. It's in the AO rulebook.
By Michael Benson (Michaelbenson) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:38 pm: Edit
Steve is this new for AO? Its never been that way before. CW's now get to be BC... Sub CL for CW for 6 and convert for 6 to BC. That is a BIG change, the Lyrans oare going to be denser than ever.
Whats the reasoning behind this if you don't mind me asking? CL#24 does not show this as a downgradable substitution.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:39 pm: Edit
See.......Mike, that is why nobody is supposed to post responses in here, save the big three.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 03:58 pm: Edit
Daniel: I will send the supply/combat status thing on to Jeff, it has to go to him before it can be appealed to SVC.
Edward: I did cover that, and I said that since you got resupplied "during" combat, you can then retrograde.
John: AHs would be replaced by the basic frigate hull, the Hunter.
Brett: if there were any defending units, then the plus points carry over.
Tim: I don't think you can be forced to voluntarily take the SIDS step like that (except under (302.615) which is not the same as this), the plus points would accumulate until you got to 6, then the defender must cripple the base, resolving four points. I cannot find anything that forces you to use the last crippling SIDS step, and the only other rule is that which requries crippling when 1/2 of the defense factor is reached.
On the Lyran CL for CW sub, I believe it is limited to once per turn.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 03:59 pm: Edit
Michael: It's not a change at all. It's been that way for quite some time (years) and has been mentioned in the various CapLog files and the master errata. Yes, you get a CL-BC conversion out of the deal. That's part of the Lyran economic system. Repeat, it is NOT A CHANGE but reflects a rule that has been in place for years.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 05:09 pm: Edit
Nick, on the Bats damaging question. The attacker has to cause 14 damage to do reflect 12 damage? I am not attempting to be rude, but if so, may I get a reasoning behind this? My understanding of the rule is that it takes 3 4 point sids to cripple a bats. Can the defender use 8 to take 2 Sids and then wait till 6 more have been given to actually cripple the bats?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 05:17 pm: Edit
Nick, since SVC is done with AO. Do you mind me asking this again, and then you could forward it to Jeff/SVC/Whoever is feeling good that day?
________________________________________
Quote:
Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, January 13, 2003 - 11:36 pm
Nick, I'm looking at the F+E Errata.
This line strikes me as odd.
(516.32) The Klingon D5G can only perform LTT missions D (supply), F (move FRD), H (carry economic points), K (deliver PDUs), or M (normal operations) or N (Marines).
So that means:
No Battle Pod (Mission A)
No Carrier Pod (Mission B)
No deploying MB (Mission C), which is not suprising, which marine would want to deploy a lowly MB.
No Repair Pod (Mission E) which is not suprising, which marine would want to guard a crippled ship.
No Drone Pods (Mission L)
I'm just wondering on all the restrictions of why it can't carry BPs and CV Pods, really. Because it REALLY hampers a D5G on isolated planets, by not carrying a BP/VP3.
________________________________________
________________________________________
Quote:
Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 10:46 am:
Scott Tenhoff: I don't know why that errata was written, but that is the rule, so...
________________________________________
I'm just wondering why the sudden change to the D5G is. Because I don't see a reason for it in Module M (restricting the pods)
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 05:20 pm: Edit
I am reviewing the RDU question even now.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 06:55 pm: Edit
D5Gs don't have the plumbing or wiring for "combat" pods and cannot carry them. The rule is quite correct as given; no Battle pods, drone pods, carrier pods, mauler pods, or stasis pods.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 07:07 pm: Edit
A Residual Defense Factor is NOT A UNIT IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD for any purpose. You cannot "re-devastate" it over and over to rack up plus points; it does not block retreat or pursuit.
All mentions of "Residual Defense Unit" are hereby changed to "Residual Defense Factor". Nick will give me a list of these references to be marked in the master book.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit
Jimi, I cannot find anything in the rules that force the defender to use a SIDS step (resolving four damage vs a BATS) in this sort of situation.
Now the rules basically say uncrippled bases with SIDS damage function like undamaged bases except they resolve less damage when voluntarily crippled by the owner. So if a BATS has 2 SIDS already scored, it still counts in combat as an undamaged BATS with normal attack/defense factors until voluntarily crippled (when it resolve only the final four damage for the third SIDS step).
So with the normal defense factor, the owner does not have to cripple the BATS until there is damage equal to half of that defense factor (6 damage). I cannot find any rule or past ruling that modifies this "1/2 defense factor rule", since SIDS steps do not actually reduce the defense factor of the base (they only do so when the owner finally chooses to cripple it).
Unless there is a rule I am missing somewhere.
Or unless someone knows of a past ruling or clarification that says SIDS steps do modify the base's defense factor for purposes of the "must cripple when damage equals 1/2 of the defense factor rule". (This last bit is the real key here.)
If you like I can ask Jeff if he agrees with this or if there should be such a modification.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 11:45 pm: Edit
Regarding forcing the player to self-score SIDS, you are right, but...
I would like it if you checked up the line on this one, Nick. It seems really odd that a Starbase could take 32 damage (7 SIDS steps), and then take another 17 points of damage, and still not be crippled.
The same would then logically apply to the crippled starbase as well. The starbase is crippled, the defending fleet leaves, the attacking fleet then scores 22 damage - 3 SIDS steps, and +8, not enough to kill the 18 point crippled starbase?
Thanks for checking on this, Nick.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 12:01 am: Edit
Does bulding a Fed VAP count against their carrier limits?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 01:16 am: Edit
Nick, I think that in the situation describe (BATS with 2 SIDS and 3 fighters, 7 unresolved damage points) the defender is forced to damage something. Although the attacker can't force the issue (as he still sees it as a 12 DF unit as per (308.64)), I believe that the Defender sees it as only a 4 DF unit due to the previous SIDS (also (308.64)). Note that unless the damage is resolved against the fighters first, the 50% rule kicks in and (302.615) forces it to take the last SIDS (resolving 4 points leaving a crippled BATS with 3 factors and 3 damage to resolve).
I think the intent of (308.84) forces the Defender to take SIDs steps until damage is resolved...but this needs to be bounced up to Jeff (and SVC) for clairification.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 10:03 am: Edit
HEy Nick, this was asked back in April, adn I found the archive, but I am curious.
With CEDS now costing a little extra to pull from production and what not, the only way to stay ahead of the curve is to build extra escorts.
I know a SB can do a CV+Escort as one 3 point conversion. Why then can it not do 3-1 point Escort conversions, as they can basically do during CEDS?
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 03:49 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick and Steve... I was in F&E Advanced Operations Replies Down Loading those Files and ran across something stating that rule was not being used...Plus the F&E rule book and game I got is 5 yrs old and the last 3 Modules. I did not know IF that rule was right or wrong or something was added to it ...Again thank you
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 09:55 pm: Edit
I quote SVC - "D5Gs don't have the plumbing or wiring for "combat" pods and cannot carry them. The rule is quite correct as given; no Battle pods, drone pods, carrier pods, mauler pods, or stasis pods."
Mauler pods...stasis pods? ...drool...
When do we get these? Please say soon, please, please, please?
Good Klingons deserve new implements of destruction.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 12:11 am: Edit
Roger, I think those pods are due to be published in the upcoming module "Impossible Operations" (ImpOps), publication date: unknown.
I plan to get the unanswered questions done tomorrow (Sunday).
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 01:30 am: Edit
Nick et al,
SIDS: I would have to agree that the defender uses the remaining SIDS value to determine whether or not the 50% level is reached, except that (302.615) still applies.
If a BATS has had two SIDS inflicted, it will have to be crippled if the attacker causes 4 points of damage. It won't have to be crippled if only 3 points were scored, as doing so would create minus points (302.615).
Kevin's comments about SBs soaking up an amazing amount of damage are quite to the point.
Retrograde: Supply for combat is checked at the Instant of combat (410.22), not the start of the combat phase. So it is possible for unsupplied ships to retreat into supply. If a ship has been in supply during combat for any number of combat hexes, it is in supply for retrograde. This is another reason why it's important which order your combats are resolved.
One of the reasons for allowing combat supply to count for retrograde is that FRDs are retrograde points, but not supply points.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 03:10 am: Edit
Nick, did ya see my question there?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 06:36 pm: Edit
Lawrence, the Fed VAP does not count against carrier production limits. Rule (509.31) says this is the case for all carrier pods (no cv pod counts against carrier production limits).
Chris, see rule (433.11) which allows one conversion per starbase per turn in the production step. The exception noted is CEDS conversions (which can only be done to replace losses). So the recent modification was to the CEDS rules, to change it from unlimited to something more realistic, but the basic conversion rule used in the production step is unchanged.
I think everything else is taken care of, so if I missed anyone's question, speak up!
Nick
By Dave Fowler (Davefowler) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 08:31 am: Edit
Ok hate to sound like i'm out of the loop, but ya I know I am, when did bats get SID's? I have the 2k version of the rule book and couldn't find it in there. Is it an AO rule change?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 11:44 am: Edit
Dave, BATS could always use SIDS. See rule (308.86). It is in the F&E2K book, and I believe it was part of the game before that as well. Remember, that a voluntary SIDS resolves 4 damage, not 4.5 like starbase SIDS.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 04:56 pm: Edit
Nick -
If the expedition succeeds during alliance retrograde on turn 4, can the coalition attack the federation on turn 5? The Federation has not gotten an op move phase in this case, so they cannot possibly have attacked the Klingons.
601.14 states that the Feds can attack the Klingons immediately, but it does not say what happens if the Feds do not attack.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 05:32 pm: Edit
When you opt to do a fighting retreat (302.77) the battle that you have to fight at BIR 0/10, is that one last round in the hex where you started or the fight at the hex that you are retreating too?
By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 06:15 pm: Edit
John, if the expedition hiits fed space on the alliance half of the turn there is some stuff thaat the feds get to do immediatly
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 11:20 pm: Edit
Tim, see (302.771). The retreating force fights whatever enemy ships are in the hex retreated into.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 11:16 am: Edit
I alos have question about the expidition (601.14) If the hydrans enter on a non op move phase (retro or retreat) how do the Feds respond, can they attack (getting in a separate Op move?) or mearly rn production and place units?
By Martin Read (Amethyst_Cat) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 05:11 pm: Edit
What can a tug do on the turn it's built? (F&E2K, no expansions)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 06:45 pm: Edit
John Smedley, rule (601.14) says that Hydran entry allows the Feds to attack, it says nothing about the Klingons attacking or declaring war, so they cannot do so until the Feds attack. If entry happens on the alliance turn the Feds get 50% economy to spend immediately, 75% on the next alliance turn (when they can attack) and 100% after that.
The 75% turn is the turn that the Feds can join the alliance and attack, the Klingons cannot attack them before this happens.
Tim Losberg, again, if the Hydrans enter during an alliance turn, the Feds are still at 50% that turn (i.e. still at peace), but will be at 75% on the next alliance turn and able to attack then.
Martin Read, a tug can be assigned any mission when built since missions are assigned in the production step (509.31).
There are restrictions on tug missions assigned before the game starts (i.e. Kzinti starting tug missions assigned before the Lyrans attack on turn #1), see (509.32) which disallows missions C, D, K in this case.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 07:10 pm: Edit
was this changed Nick?
601.14 states that if the Hydrans enter Federation Terrirory, The Federation joins the Alliance, at full war status and able to attack the Klingons immediately...
Also, does the 50% income come in addition to the PWC schedualed for that turn (which in theory would have already been produced before movement) or instead of?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 11:13 pm: Edit
Tim, yes you get to attack "immediately", but you don't get to alter the sequence of play. So if the expedition succeeds on the alliance turn after operational moves, you don't get to attack "immediately"... It really means "as soon as possible" given the sequence of play.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 09:44 am: Edit
"Also, does the 50% income come in addition to the PWC schedualed for that turn (which in theory would have already been produced before movement) or instead of? "
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 11:35 am: Edit
I have two questions.
1) Can you React out of Off map areas? Extended reaction also?
2) I remember a limit of 7 Minus points per battle round.
Does this apply to all battles, or only Pursuit?
Thanx
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 12:50 pm: Edit
Edward, I believe you are supposed to subtract off the PWC costs for that turn from the 50% (since as you say that was already spent), the remainder you then get to spend yourself instead of it going to peacetime uses.
Bret, you cannot react out of off map at all, see rule (207.24), it lists how you can leave an off map area. The minus point limit is on minus points carrying over to the pursuit battle.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 03:28 pm: Edit
A question about the Feds being activated by the Hydrans. When they are at 50%, are they still considered to be at peace, or can they do things any other race at war could do like overbuilds, prime teams, command points, survey, etc? It sounds like they get to spend any leftover after PWC to build more, so I see no reason why they could not buy a prime team, command point, or overbuild.
Also, are their fleets released? I know they can't op move them, but they could strat them around if they wanted to if they were released. I apoligize if all these answers are in the rules, but I don't have access right now, and the thoughts just hit me
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 02:09 pm: Edit
Nick, I swear (really) that this is the last Expidition question I will ask... Since this is the first time (and probibly the last time) I have ever succesfully run it I want to make sure i get everything right. Please confirm the following sequence...
Alliance Phase-
Units on the board are only the Klingon, Lyrans, Kzin and Hydran. Fed Units are not placed.
Economy- only Kzin and Hydran complete EA.
Op move- During this stage one or more Hydran units enter Federation territory.
Now what I unbderstand as happening is that the Feds immediately spend (at wartime allowances) 50% of their income minus the cost of that turns PWC. They then place the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Fleets on the board and continue with Operational movement (since it is still Op Move step), and are allowed to attack Kilingon units.
My questions are:
1 is that correct? (kind of important I guess)
2. Does PWC follow normal phases.. theoretically is it construced during economy and strat moved to the destinations during strat move phase?
3. If so, does that mean that the PWC is still in the shipyard at the entry of the Hydrans and if so does it have to still go to the fleet it is earmarked for or can the federation redeploy to meet the immediate threat of the Klingons and not the possible threat from another race?
whew...
thanks
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 05:03 pm: Edit
Tim, what turn are you in? I've never seen a successful Expedition. Just curious.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 05:21 pm: Edit
Hibs will enter Federation Space on turn 4
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 05:26 pm: Edit
TURN 4!!! Somebody is in a world of hurt!
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 06:10 pm: Edit
Just what is the process of transfering Lyran Pods to Klingon Tugs:
I'm at the begining of the turn, how do I assign Lyran Pods to Klingon ships?
1) Do the Klingon Tugs have to be at a Lyran SMN to "receive them"?
2) Do I have to have a Lyran Tug, tote them over to a Klingon SMN, and then they get transfered? Like Turn N, I put 2 KBP on a TGP, move to Northern Reserve SB. Turn N+1, transfer them to Klingons and "Bam!" they can be used Turn N+1 on a Klingon Tug.
3) Something else?
I haven't really seen it explained anywhere.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 07:37 pm: Edit
Robert: I believe you could do that. I seem to vaguely remember a previous ruling on this, but I cannot remember what it was or find it, so hopefully I am not contradicting anything. As far as the ship construction schedule goes, compare the already built PWC to the build schedule for that turn based on rule (702.5). So for turn 4:
T4 Spring 170
PWC: 3xNCL, 3xFF to 3rd fleet
PWC: [CVB+DE+FFE] to 6th fleet
Build schedule to be used for early activation on turn 4 according to (702.5):
[CVA+ECL+2xDE], CA, 3xNCL, 3xFF
So comparing these, the two scheduled DEs became the PWC DE and FFE (subbed) for the CVB group, the PWC CVB came from the scheduled CA, and the 3xNCLs and 3xFFs translated directly. So still to be built is a DN hull and a CL hull from the carrier group (Note the CVA variant is not available until 171).
Fleets released would be just like on Turn #7.
Tim: You should set up ALL the Fed fleets before doing construction. Set up everything, even though some of it is unreleased. (although if you guys want to play it that way I wouldn't worry about stuff that is on the other half of the map if you don't want to bother with it).
PWC: I would say it is already placed with the appropriate fleet (i.e. it magically got there when produced, or was assigned there when produced, since you don't keep track of these things until you are activated, and production already happened when you were activated).
Scott: This would be governed by (517.23) and (517.24). Pods are in a specific grid, and can be placed on any tug that can draw supply from that grid. So Lyran pods would be in the Lyran grid, and Klingon pods would be in the klingon grid. So if a klingon tug wants to use a lyran pod, it must be able to "draw supply" (i.e. six hexes or less from a lyran supply point) from the lyran grid containing that pod, even if it is not really supplied by that grid.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 05:41 pm: Edit
Nick, can you double check on that.. it does not seem right that the Federation declare war on one race but send an important carrier group to an inactive border..
one DN and on CL makes a very thin reinforcement for a war front.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 06:13 pm: Edit
I think someday we're going to have to do an actual Fed OB for "early war". Might be a good CapLog article.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 07:10 pm: Edit
Nick,
So what (in terms of Federation build options and movement options) happens if the Klingons invade the Marquis province turn 4 coalition? How is this modified if the expedition succeeds on alliance turn 4?
I understand that the 4th fleet & new builds are released by the incursion into the Marquis' provinces. Would the Feds be able to operationally move only the 4th and new builds, but strategically move the Home and 3rd?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 08:04 pm: Edit
I'm working on a fed early war ob. When it's done, I'll let you all know.
By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 08:45 pm: Edit
Under the provisions for setting up a piracy patrol fleet, 600.33, if the Kzinti set-up ships for piracy patrol during the "pirate" phase of turn 1 from the Home fleet and set-up outside the Capitol, and the Lyrans invade on turn 1, what if any restrictions would those ships be under during turn 1. Would they become "active" along with the Count's, Duke's and the rest of the Home fleet and be able to react to lyran movements? Also, does the three hex dispersment rule apply to their set-up and would they still be under that restriction at the end of the turn.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 02:21 am: Edit
thanks Steve.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 01:38 pm: Edit
Quick question on tugs transporting ep's. Can the Feds move 2 tugs with EP's to one of their bats during strategic movement (say 2103 or 2201) and drop the EP's there. Then the Kzinti move 2 tugs to that bats, pick up the ep's and move them offmap in strategic phase? If so, does the money go into the Kzinti economy immediately? I know this is an odd question, need the answer to pre-answer a problem that may result in an ongoing game and I do not have my rulebooks with me, left em at home accidentally.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 02:29 pm: Edit
See what you guys think of this. If there are any questions or glitches, I can deal with them when we print this in CL26.
FEDERATION EARLY WAR
One of the most confusing parts of the entire game system is the "oh, by the way" rule that if the Federation goes to war before Turn #7, it simply moves up the production schedule. This doesn’t really work, for a number of reasons, including hull type availability, ships assigned to various frontiers, and how quickly production of various types can be ramped up. To understand the situation, we first have to reverse-engineer the 702 Order of Battle to show the actual Federation Pre-War Construction Schedule in proper sequence.
1-Fall Y168: DN Activated for 3rd Fleet (Klingon Border).
2-Spring Y169: [CVB+DE+FFE]; these ships are assigned to the 3rd (Klingon Border) Fleet.
3-Fall Y169: DN activated for 6th (Romulan Border) Fleet, FFS built for the 3rd (Klingon Border) Fleet.
4-Spring Y170: 3xNCL, 3xFF; these ships are built for the 3rd (Klingon Border) Fleet.
[CVB+DE+FFE] built for 6th (Romulan Border) Fleet.
5-Fall Y170: DN activated; 3xNCL, 3xFF built; all built for the 4th (Kzinti Border) Fleet.
6-Spring Y171: [CVA+ECL+2xDE], 3xNCL, 3xFF, FFS; these ships are built for the 1st (Home) Fleet.
7-Fall Y171: DN, CA, 3xNCL, 3xFF (This begins the regular wartime production schedule.)
8-Spring Y172: [CVA+ECL+2xDE], CA, 3xNCL, 3xFF
9-Fall Y172: DN+, CA, 6xNCL, 6xFF
10-Spring, Y173: [CVA+ECL+2xDE], CC, CA, 10xNCL, 12xFF.
11-Fall, Y173: DN+, 2xCA, 12xNCL, 12xFF.
Let’s examine each of these ship types in detail.
CA: The Federation had slipways for two cruisers per year, but wasn’t using them since Star Fleet had the required number of cruisers. They could begin building a CA each turn on the first production cycle they are at war.
CVA production marks the opening of the second "size class two" slipway. The Federation had done this in anticipation of a new war and the need for a stronger fleet, but were in no hurry about it. If an early war erupts, CVA production would start on the next Spring turn, so unless the Klingon invade on Turn #3 or earlier, that’s not going to help. The escorts would come along at the same time.
CVB: The CVBs are built in cruiser slots, and remain unaffected by early war, as do their escorts.
DN: The three activations are "early" DNs being converted and remain unchanged. The Fall Y171 DN is the first of the new series being built. If you go to war early, you don’t get any extra DNs since the DN slipway is full of old DNs being converted. The DN+ isn’t available to build until Y172, so it cannot be moved forward to replace other DNs. So early war doesn’t change the DN situation at all.
FF: The ramp-up to six FFs per turn, so Hydran arrival or a Klingon invasion on Turn #3 would increase FF production to six per turn on Turn #6 and twelve on the next turn.
FFS: The two scheduled to be built remain unchanged and further FFS scouts take up FF slots.
NCLs: These are first available in Y170 so Early War doesn’t get them sooner. The ramp-up to six NCLs comes on the third turn of war. So if the Hydrans arrived on Turn #4 and the Feds went to wartime production on Turn #5, the you would go to six NCLs per turn on Turn #7, ten on the next turn, and twelve the turn after that.
One problem the Federation suffers from is that if a war begins on the Alliance turn, they will have already done their pre-war construction and won’t have a production cycle until the next turn. That’s just the penalty for being surprised.
The above information covers the transitional turns when the Federation is at war in your game but historically was not. That will bring the Federation production up to the Y173-Y174 schedule, which they will continue to use until Y175, at which point they would be on the historical schedule. The Y175 schedule cannot be brought forward due to the availability of ship types.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 02:54 pm: Edit
If the Federation is activated on an alliance turn, what are they allowed to spend their ep on?
The rule for the expedition (sorry I don't have my rulebook here, but it is 601.something) states that the feds get 50% econ on the alliance turn they are activated (by neccesity they must be activated after production).
Are you saying that they cannot spend these ep on production? or that they must pay for the prewar construction for the turn they are activated, but cannot do any other builds/conversions thay turn?
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 03:02 pm: Edit
Also, I do not understand the statement on the FF ramp up.
Is it 3FF on the first two turns of war
then 6 FF on the next turn and 12 FF on the fourth turn?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 03:02 pm: Edit
The money percentages are used to pay for the scheduled PWC for that turn (since it was collected before the war began), then anything left is available for drones or command points or whatever.
In future turns, the money pays for the "scheduled" ships (by the schedule two messages up, adjusted for early entry) and the rest for whatever.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 03:07 pm: Edit
oops, missing words from Frigates:
FF: The ramp-up to six FFs per turn comes on the third turn of war, so Hydran arrival or a Klingon invasion on Turn #3 would increase FF production to six per turn on Turn #6 and twelve on the next turn.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 03:08 pm: Edit
and the PWC already went to the designated fleets before Op movement?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 03:12 pm: Edit
Good one.
On the first Federation turn of the war, any PWC built that turn is not sent where assigned but is released to be sent to the active front. Thereafter, any PWC assignments are ignored and the ships are released for duty at the front. For example, assume that the Hydrans enter the Federation on Turn #5. The PWC ships for that turn were scheduled for the 4th Fleet, but are instead released and sent wherever the Federation player wants them to go (within the rules; you don’t get to deploy them on the Klingon capital).
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 03:20 pm: Edit
Thank you - I think I've got it now. As a test, I'll post what I think will be the Federation schedule in my game:
Situtation: Klingons invaded Marquis on Coalition turn 4 (expedition would have succeeded alliance turn 4 anyway)
Fed builds:
Turn 4: First turn of war builds.
CVB, DE, FFE, 3 NCL, 3 FF (CVB uses CA slot)
Turn 5:
DN (activation), CA, 3 NCL, 3 FF
Turn 6: Third turn of War builds
CVA, ECL, 2DE, 6 NCL, 6 FF, FFS
Turn 7:
DN, CA, 10 NCL, 12 FF
Turn 8:
CVA, ECL, 2DE, CA, 12 NCL, 12 FF BC for 6, plus you can do the same with the BCH for the same cost, but it cost 1 for a BC->BCH.
2) Can you convert a CA->DNH, and if you can what is the cost
And if I miss it somewhere can you show me where this ruling are at so I can make a note of it
Thanks
By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 01:40 pm: Edit
Another thing with Tholian space and the Pirates is the former Klingon planets. The Tholians don't use them, so would they be protected by layers of web? And if the pirates can profit from these plantes, why would the Tholians bother them? All they would be doing is risking their small, and not very heavily gunned, feet for resources they can't use.
By Dana Madsen (Danam) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 02:40 pm: Edit
Nick, quick question on production without a shipyard.
511.33 says I can build "One defense battalion or one mobile base". Can I use 433.421, self-generation, to add battalions on undevastated planets which are not the new capital. This would let me build more than 1 battalion in a turn so I wanted to check?
Dana
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 07:47 am: Edit
We (in Nashville) have some more Pirate clarifications:
If a race cancels some prewar construction, say the only item on the production scedule is a BD like the Gorn's. I is only worth 3 EP's, say only one point is sent to the Pirates for whatever reason. What happens to the other 2 EP's? Can they carry over into the next turn for use in further Pirate activities?
The rules are clear on canceling PWC for paying for Pirate activities. They are not clear on how to pay for Pirate Raids in your territory if you are at war. If there is a Pirate raid into Federation Territory on Turn one the only PWC the Federation has is a DN for 12 EP. Does this get cancelled to pay 1 EP to the Pirate?
We are starting a campain this Saturday on Turn 1 with Pirates.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 07:59 am: Edit
Forgot one!
Do repairs to damaged Anti-Piracy ships for races that are not activated have to come out of PWC also?
By William Hughes (Patchfur3) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 09:42 am: Edit
The Gorn bonus:
Does a monitor in orbit block the Gorn bonus from damaging a PDU?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 10:05 am: Edit
I've got an interesting question that just popped into my mind. Say I build a base without fighters. Then during op move say I have none but transfer 6 fighters from a carrier to that base. Post op the carrier refills its fighters, does the base keep those 6 fighters? Is it possible to fill up a base with carrier fighters (as fighters can freely distribute from carriers/pdu's/bases at will...
Hopefully this is not allowed and if so probably needs to be fixed so it cannot be allowed.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 10:21 am: Edit
I have noticed a seeming contradiction in the scenario rules with the actual rules.
The Tholian rules (503.34) state that they will not allow the Federation to enter their territory but in The Tempest 602.48 says the Federation may send the 7th Fleet into Tholian territory. How does this work?
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 11:12 am: Edit
Nick,
I know you answered this one before, but I cannot seem to find the answer.
The Hydran substitution notes limit the hydrans to 4 DW substitutions during Y173-175. Does this note also limit the number of DWs that may be created by conversion from frigates? The note specifically applies to DHF substitution, but all DWs and their variants are available by conversion in Y173 (according to the AO SIT).
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 11:27 am: Edit
602.48 is an exception to 503.34.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 11:33 am: Edit
Four DWs of any type by any means. FOUR. One two three FOUR. No more, of any type, by any means.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 12:54 pm: Edit
Steve,
I think there should be an errata to that effect - the note certianly reads like it applies specifically to the DWF.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 03:54 pm: Edit
It's not errata. Production means any means, BUILD means not converted.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 04:01 pm: Edit
The reason I think there should be an errata:
1. This overall limit appears in the allowed substitutions section of the OB - not an obvious place to look for production limits.
2. There is no mention of any sort of limit on the SIT.
3. The line containing the limit is refering to DWF for HN substitution. It is not clear that this limit applies to, for example, CU->DWH conversion. The imit should include specific text stating that it applies to all DWs & variants, not just the DWF (I do not consider the DWH to be a "variant" of the DWF, but perhaps I'm mistaken).
I should note that I do not have AO in my hands yet, so it is possible that you fixed 1 & 2 before AO went to press and I missed the memo.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 04:08 pm: Edit
John: It doesn't matter. The only place that allows early DWs is the place that limits it to four. Nothing else needs to be done.
You are fast approaching the point of putting me in a bad mood. Drop it. Now.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 04:17 pm: Edit
Ok - Sorry.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 06:44 pm: Edit
The new listing in AO is very specific for the Hydran DW.
"DWF for FF once per turn Y173-S176 with a maximum of four prototype DWs during those seven turns; no FF to DW conversions can be made."
AO is a wonderful thing!
Interestingly, G1 shows the DWE available in Y173, with the DWF and all other DW variants in full service in Y176. Historically, the first four DWs were all DWEs, but that doesn't have to be the case in F&E. All DW variants are available Y173.
By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 06:03 am: Edit
More pirate questions..the way I read the cloaked pirate rules, 504.45 and 306.11, a Orion LR (with cloaking device) could raid any Capitol hex, grab half of it's eco, and have a two-thirds chance of cloaking away with the booty regardless of the opposing forces in the hex. Have I missed something?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 07:42 am: Edit
Scott, Rule 504.53 prohibits this from happening.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 09:51 am: Edit
Question about 410.34 (Orion smuggling)
Could you use that to smuggle EP's to the Hydrans from the Federation? The rule seems a little vague to me but it seems to indicate that you could for example spend 10 Federation EP's to get 5 EP's to the Hydrans. I am unsure about this interpretation however.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 09:59 am: Edit
Ed: Only if there is a fed partial grid in Hydran space.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 11:11 am: Edit
Nick, when will you be fielding AO questions?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 11:14 am: Edit
Michael Oliver, the CL->BC or BCH is correct. Not that much difference to go from CL to either one, but it is like re-doing some work to go from BC to BCH, hence the 1 pt cost. CA->DNH costs 8 pts, it is in the DNH notes on the AO SIT.
All, I think it is just safest to say the Orions do not operate in tholian space.
Jimi La Form, if you build a base without fighters, you cannot transfer fighters to it without paying the cost to add fighter module, a base built without fighters cannot have fighters transfered to it from another carrier.
Dana Madson, planets can build PDUs without the shipyard. The rule is without a shipyard you can still do one for placement by tug (i.e. to a planet without any PDUs).
Mike Curtis, when at peace you cannot carry over EPs at all, better to give them all to the pirates for other bribes. You do not need to account for money stolen by pirate raids in prewar areas (the pre-war construction still happens), and any ships damaged/destroyed must be replaced by the normal rules but without having to pay for it (the peacetime people allow the money to replace/repair ships that are fighting pirates). This is from Advanced Ops.
On the Feds entering Tholian space, specific scenario rules always override the general rule in a given case.
William Hughes, since it is a marine attack (even though it is one without "Gs"), a monitor would block it.
Scott Hofner, Orions can only raid one planet of a multi-system hex.
Someone asked why you can do three escort conversions per starbase in the CEDS step but only one in the production step, and the answer was that the different steps use different rules, and that is that. But, remember that "a conversion" can be a carrier group, so you can do multiple escort conversions in the production step if it is for an allowed (i.e. standard) carrier group.
I think that is everything up to this point. If I missed any questions, let me know.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 11:24 am: Edit
Scott, I STILL Have not gotten my copy of AO (even though it theoretically should have arrived yesterday).
I have the latest version before it went to press (which is probably 99% correct), but I can never be sure the rule I am checking is 100% correct without actually seeing the final version. I did handle some AO issues above. If you want to ask one, go ahead, I am hoping to get my real copy today....
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 12:01 pm: Edit
I thought that in Carrier war it allowed you to do partial carrier group conversions. This allows you to take 2 or 3 ships and convert them into a carrier group without the carrier.
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 02:36 pm: Edit
What exactly happens economically if a pirate raids a planet that changes hands during a turn?
Consider the following: Beginning of turn 2, the pirate raids the Kzinti planet at 1105. During that turn, Coalition forces take that planet.
Case 1: They spare the pirate and the Kzintis cannot counter attack.
1) How many points does the pirate get? (2 points since it was undevastated when he started, 1 point since it no longer is).
2) Who loses those points and when? (Kzintis when their economics start for this phase, they would not get any since they no longer control the planet).
Case 2: They do not spare the pirate
3) Who gets points back, the coalition that now owns the planet? This would also depend on 2 above I assume.
Case 3: They spare the pirate but the Kzintis on their turn are able to kill the pirate.
4) Do they get points back (again that probably depends if they lost some in 2)?
5) Does the answer to 4 depend in any way on whether or not they were able to successfully retake the planet as well?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 02:41 pm: Edit
I love questions that make me dizzy......
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 03:06 pm: Edit
And we thought Pirates would be fun to do with our new campain...
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 05:52 pm: Edit
When I originally thought of the question, my thinking was that whenever anyone loses economy during the economic phase because of pirate activity, the points lost are "placed on board" the raider and if the raider is destroyed they are returned to whoever they were taken from. If he is not, then he keeps them.
The problem with that is in the 1105 example, the pirate would get no points for surviving the raid since neither the coalition nor alliance collected any income from 1105 during the turn. I could also show examples (basically involving an alliance player taking back a planet) where the pirate could collect income from both parties given the above principle, which makes me think the principle is wrong.
By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 10:35 pm: Edit
Can the Lyrans put EP's on a tug on turn one to send to the Klingons. 601.161 says they cannot enter each others territory. So could a Lyran tug load up on turn 1, stop at the border then continue on the Klingon Capitol one turn 2?
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 10:45 pm: Edit
Scott H. beat me to the punch.
Under 2K rules, 601.161 the Klingons are described as being at a full wartime economy and as being allies with the Lyrans.
509.1 - Mission H refers to 435.0
435.0 two allied races, both of which are at war or limited war may transfer EPs between themselves
435.22 Procedures - The tug must travel from the capital of one race to the capital of another race. This will normally require one turn, unless off-map travel or Operational Movement is used...
Following these rules, could not a Tug gather 10 EP's on turn 1, move towards the Klingons during Operational Movement (but not enter Klingon Space...), then on turn 2 continue onward to the capital?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 10:48 pm: Edit
Another Pirate Question (We are beginning to question why we chose to have them with all the questions that have come up):
The Klingon Southern Reserve Sets up in 1716 according to 703. 600.33 states border fleets deploy in an area, how are the SR and NR handled since they are not border fleets? Can the SR respond to pirates within six hexes of 1716? Can they send out a Piracy Patrol? Or must the Home Fleet provide the coverage on the other side of 1716?
By Jeffrey Alan Hester (Phanatik) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 11:30 pm: Edit
As a continuation of Mike's 10:48 question...
Consider that the Hydran 1st & 2nd fleets are required to set up on the bases bordering the Klingon/Lyran borders. Does this mean they can only patrol against pirates in these Base hexes, and that the intervening empty hexes must be patrolled by the Home fleet?
I believe the fixation has occurred because of the 600.33 rules not mentioning that they also affect the other fleets and their areas.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 11:33 pm: Edit
OK, AO question:
(314.25) COMBAT: if there are already two or more enemy ships or equivalents in the Raid Target Hex, then all may fight the Raiding Ship (318.7)
Do PDU Fighters count, as they cannot react (205.7) can they leave the planet to engage the Raider?
((205.7) Fighters and PFs can react independantly of their carrier and tenders (including bases but not PDUs)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 11:45 pm: Edit
Edward, yes you can do a conversion that is "less than a full carrier group" conversion, but what you do convert must still fit as part of a standard group. You can't delete the carrier part of the group conversion and convert an additional escort in its place for example...
Scott, it has been ruled before that you cannot load EPs to give to the klingons on turn one. You can move them to a satellite stockpile though, if you wish (for Klingons to pick up on turn 2).
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 06:41 pm: Edit |
March - April 2003 Archive
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 01:08 am: Edit
There is a TacNote somewhere on the Lyran shipment of EPs to the Klingons on turn 1. Basically, you move the tug to a base on turn 1 and establish a satellite stockpile (which I believe someone has mentioned above). If this is done in, say, 0809, the tug can move to the Klingon capital on turn 2 using Operational Movement. And since the 20 EP limit is what can be sent each turn, the Lyrans can still send over some additional EPs during turn 2, and the Klingons get lots of cash to put the boots to the Kzintis.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 01:32 am: Edit
um.....I think that is illegal. You can still only give the Klingons 20 EPs in any particular turn....right?
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 04:15 am: Edit
Well, I think it is *technically* legal, as there is nothing to stop the Lyrans from sending 20 ep to a stockpile on turn 1, and letting the Klingons collect it on turn 2.
But what the tac note doesn't say is that the Lyrans could *not* then send another 20 ep on turn 2, as they had reached their transfer limit when the Klingons picked up the stockpile.
It's two different issues, but often a person asks for clarification of one, when they really wanted to ask the other. Thus the confusion.
And yes, Nick, I apologize for butting in. Clearly my answer is unofficial - I just hope it might help to clarify the question.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 11:31 am: Edit
(435.1) Limitations
Any race can transfer up to 20 Economic Points per turn to each allied race (Fed-Kzinti-Gorn-Hydran-Tholian or Klingon-Lyran-Romulan; these could be different in a Free Campaign), provided only that both are at War (including Limited War) and have become allies or cobelligerents. The 20-point limit is the number of points that can be SENT on a given turn. Changing tactical situations could delay some shipments so that more than 20 points might arrive on a single turn.
This is a quote from the 2K rulebook. As I interpret it, the Lyrans can mail off 20 EPs on each of turn 1 and 2. The fact they both arrive on turn 2 is irrelevant. (The TacNote in question is Stockpile Shuffle in CL24.)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 11:52 am: Edit
Well.....this is true. However, I would interpret the Lyrans as "Sending" that satalite stockpile to the Klingons, when they come to pick it up.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 12:01 pm: Edit
deleted
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 02:27 pm: Edit
The Klingons are not 'at war' on turn 1 so you cannot "send" them money on turn 1.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 02:29 pm: Edit
And I would interpret "sending" as loading up the EPs on the tug(s) and they leave the capital hex. Whether or not it gets to the Klingon capital right away is immaterial. I guess we could use a ruling on this.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 02:39 pm: Edit
Klingon war status is covered under (601.161). While Lyran ships are prohibited from entering thier space, I believe the following sentence from (601.161) covers this:
"The Klingons on Turn 1 can build and convert ships (as well as non-ships such as an FRD), use accelerated or overproduction, accumulate economic points, activate mothball ships, receive and buy command points, raise and buy prime teams, and anything else that a race at war could do." (my emphasis)
The Klingons are running a wartime economy as of turn 1, although they haven't officially declared war on anybody. Thus they can get economic points sent to them by their Lyran allies, but these points can't enter Klingon space until turn 2.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 02:46 pm: Edit
I don't think so. If they are not at war, they are not allied with the Lyrans on Turn 1.
Wartime economy is not relevant.
Doing anything a race at war could do isn't the same as being at war, as you aren't allied to anybody. I could be wrong (maybe there is a prior ruling on this) but it doesn't add up to me.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 03:07 pm: Edit
Further up the same rule, it does say "....their Lyran allies cannot enter their territory." Sounds like they are allies from the get-go.
Then again, you are the designer, so it can mean whatever you want.
I would also like to note that I'd never actually tried this, since I find the Lyrans have more than enough to spend EPs on during turn 1 without having to give some to the money grubbing Klingons.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 03:20 pm: Edit
I could argue either way. I will give Nick and Jeff a chance to find a prior ruling and then we can decided if we need a new one or not.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 03:46 pm: Edit
I remember the prior ruling was that you cannot load EPs to send to the Klingons on turn one, either by Operational, or strategic movement.
You can set up a satellite stockpile on turn one with the intention of the Klingons picking it up on turn 2, since setting up the stockpile on turn 1 is an internal Lyran operation and does not involve the Klingons.
Now does it count as "delivering" on turn 2 if klingons pick up EPs from a lyran satellite stockpile, or can you pick up the stock pile and do a regular delivery via strat move? This one I don't think has been ruled on in the past (but it seems to me on first thought that it would or should count). What does the captains log tactic state? (I don't have that issue with me at the moment, but I should be able to check monday if Jeff or someone else doesn't in the meantime).
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 03:50 pm: Edit
I would assume if the satelite stock was a purely internal Lyran matter that it doesn't count as "sent" so you cannot send both turn 1 and turn 2, but stockpile on turn 1 and send what's in the stockpile on 2.
By Kent Wendel (Huskerfan) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 03:51 pm: Edit
The Captains Log (CL 24, p. 111) tactic says exactly what you stated Nick... you set up the stockpile.
But there was no discussion on how this effected total EP delivery. Mainly it talks about the effect on tug missions.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 05:18 pm: Edit
The effect on total EP delivery was my addition. If there has been a previous ruling on Turn 1 transfers, then that blows my argument out of the water.
By Kent Wendel (Huskerfan) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 06:16 pm: Edit
435.1 states that "the 20 point limit is the number of points that can be SENT on a given turn. Changing tactical situations could delay some shipments so that more than 20 points might arrive on a single turn".
[edited for horrible content & spelling]
Someone wiser than me can explain what "changing tactical situations" implies.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 06:28 pm: Edit
What changing tactical situations means is you put it on a tug which opmoves to a point from which it's next opmove will reach the destination. But, during the enemy turn, an enemy task force blocks this path and it takes two turns to get around them.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 09:46 pm: Edit
OK, my take on the stockpile is that it would count against the (435.1) 20 per turn limit as it must be 'picked-up' from the stockpile. The reason for the stockpile rather than remaining 'in transit' (on the tug) is to not violate the 'no EPs to the Klingons on turn 1' rule.
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 10:42 pm: Edit
Steve, the reason I attempted this Turn 1 transfer in the first place was:
In Fed and Empire 89, Rule 601.2 specifically defines the Klingons as "Future Beligerents", hence no EP transfers. The No EPs to Klingons on turn 1 was made during the time when this ruleset was most current.
With the advent of DF&E 2k, however,
Rule 601.161 specifically refers to the Klingons and thier "Lyran ALLIES".
Rule 435.0 states - "two allied races, both of which are at war or limited war may transfer EPs between themselves..."
Rule 435.22 - "Procedures - The tug must travel from the capital of one race to the capital of another race. This will normally require one turn, unless off-map travel or Operational Movement is used..."
As you are the game designer / developer - I will defer to either yours or Nicks decision, but in light of the wording of the new rules, could one of you please review the situation and see if the previous ruling is still valid?
Since we are now ready for turn 2 - Alliance phase of the new campaign, and the Lyrans didn't send the EPs to the Klingons on turn1, its not a critical issue, but... others may be able to benefit from a brief review.
Thanks, Tony
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 12:40 am: Edit
We hashed this out two years ago, under the current F&E2K rules.
(503.61) "While the Klingons are technically an armed Future Belligerent, in point of fact, the Klingons and Lyrans are allies in all but name (as reflected by a few special case rules, such as the prohibition against the Lyrans entering Klingon space of hexes 0805 and 0905, since this would provide overt proof that an alliance exists).
Transfering EPs is an overt proof of an alliance, and therefore prohibited. This is also why the Klingons don't operate Survey ships on Turn 1, they are operating in Lyran space.
The Klingons can do a lot of things internally, but anything external is not allowed under (601.161).
Additionally,
(601.161) "The Klingons on Turn 1 ... are not at war with anyone."
(435.0) "Two allied nations, both of which are at War or Limited War..."
The Klingons are on a wartime economy on Turn 1, just as the Romulans and Hydrans are. But none of these three races is "at War," so none can send or receive EPs.
By Stephen Rasmussen (Razman) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 12:51 am: Edit
Situation,
The romulan BATS, after several rounds of battle with several Fed frigates and defended by a valiant group of snipes, has taken 1 SEDS step. The Fed finally retreated and the crippled snipes were unable to pursue.
It is now coming up on the romulan turn. Can that uncrippled BATS use its 4 pts of repair to repair one seds step?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 06:45 am: Edit
I think it is pretty clear that the Lyrans cannot send EPs to the Klingons on turn 1. The "passing reference" to allies refers to the original covert and future overt situation and does NOT allow transfers of EPs on turn 1. Let that be the end of it. And no, we do not need any errata, although a Q&A might be in order.
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 08:12 am: Edit
...Transfering EPs is an overt proof of an alliance, and therefore prohibited. This is also why the Klingons don't operate Survey ships on Turn 1, they are operating in Lyran space...
Got it. Subject dropped. Thanks for the clarification as to why this is unallowed.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 10:18 am: Edit
Scott Burleson, rule (504.342) says that pirate ships on the board operate like normal ships, and that any reduced economy is credited to them.
So if a pirate is placed on a kzinti planet, and that planet is attacked by the coalition, the coalition would fight the orion (it is an enemy ship, and if you end up in the same hex as an enemy ship you must fight, but here you are using the orion combat table instead of normal combat). If chased off, then the orions get nothing from the planet, if the pirate chases off the coalition, then assuming the kzinti collect reduced income from that planet, then the orions get the remainder.
If no one collects income, then the income was never reduced and the pirates also get nothing. (There were no deliveries from that planet for the pirates to steal from.)
Mike Curtis, the rule is pretty specific that the home fleet handles anti-piracy duties (unless it is released and there are other inactive fleets, in which case you can pick one of those fleets to handle pirates), so that is what it is.
As for the Hydrans, it would still seem to be up to the home fleet, their space is small, and six home fleet ships could be deployed to easily cover everything.
The rule seems clear that only one inactive fleet should be handling anti-piracy patrols at a time, and this is the home fleet unless it has been activated. So the klingons cannot deploy anti-piracy ships from both the home and southern reserve fleets, and the hydrans cannot deploy anti-piracy ships from the home fleet and other fleets.
Stephen Rasmussen, yes, and uncrippled BATS could self repair one SIDS step. (Remember, there are CEDS damage, and there are SIDS steps, but there are no such thing as SEDS steps).
Scott Tenhoff, the PDU fighters would only be used if the raider attacked the planet (PDU fighters never leave their planet).
The Satellite stockpile does not count against the limits on turn one, (since the limits on turn 1 are 0EPs, you cannot "send" anything). Picking up the stockpile on turn 2 would count against the limits for that turn, since it must count against limits sometime.
Caught up again. If I missed anything, let me know.
And I still don't have my real copy of Advanced Ops, must be lost in the mail somewhere... I thought it would be here Thursday or Friday...
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 01:54 pm: Edit
Nick, I feel your pain. Still waiting for my AO also. At least you get a free one.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 02:09 pm: Edit
For everyones information on the delay of the delivery of AO. The main distrubution center for UPS in Mesquite, TX was in the middle of a very large Ice Storm which arrived just after all the packages from ADB. It delayed the package I was expecting 2.5 days. The package is now in my town and I expect delivery on Monday.
Nick, thanks for the answers!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 02:38 pm: Edit
Ice storms do not concern me, Deliveryman, I want that package, not excuses....
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 04:43 pm: Edit
At least you're not on a Rock in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. My mail gets flown to Portugal and them flown out to me on a small prop driven plane that has been in service since it was a barn stormer in the 1920s.
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 04:49 pm: Edit
Nick,
I appreciate your answers. I am sorry I am going to have to disagree (ducks...)
First of all, the statement that the coalition would be required to attack the pirate as an enemy ship to resolve the combat hex. First of all, what if all of the ships were used against the non-pirate in the combat phase. (504.43) says that they could not be used against the pirate, so would they have to retreat.
Also, think about what that would mean if the Orion player raided hex 1411 with a CVL group. If there were no Klingon carrier groups within range, every Lyran ship is going to be forced to abandon the starbase or be destroyed, since they would have to use the 504.4 combat table. How much do you think the Hydrans would be willing to bribe the Orions to do this on turn 3?
504.43 and 504.41 use terms such as can and may for the non-pirate player. 504.343 mentions that the Orions do not have to attack. To me it makes the most sense that the non-pirate player can let the pirate have his little raid and get away with an EP instead of allowing a single Orion carrier group destroy his defenses.
In regard to the questions about the fleets, I have come to the same conclusions but would like to make observations.
First of all, this basically assumes that the definition of a deployment area of a fleet is the hexes it can deploy in. Now this seems obvious, but consider that this prevents ships in one hex areas from moving at all under 600.31 and also prevents Hydran border fleets from moving at all under this rule, since their deployment area is not contiguous. Ships could move between 0215 and 0315.
Secondly, we are saying that the six ship piracy patrol described in 600.33 is responsible for all hexes that are not in the home fleet and can be deployed in any of these hexes. Note that means that the Home fleet is responsible for hexes 0214 for the Hydrans and 1616 for the Klingons. It also means that on alliance turn 1, the Kzintis can make a new piracy patrol on turn 1 to cover the middle of the board (home fleet is released at this point). Now can they use the Baron's fleet some of the six holding ships of the Marquis fleet for this (in other words how does 600.33 interact with 601.12 abd 601.2 Turn 2 Kzinti Force status)?
Here is a map of the four western powers fleet deployment areas. The gray area for each of the powers is the zone that is "undeployable" and that which has to be covered by the piracy patrol. Look at how different this area looks for the Klingons and Hydrans as compared to the Lyrans and Kzintis.
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 05:04 pm: Edit
I was still editting the above message. I am sorry I don't know how it was posted. First of all that should be hex 0411, not 1411 above. Secondly, I was going to divide it into two messages to spare everyone, too late now. Thirdly, here is the image.
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 05:11 pm: Edit
Okay, it says we can only post images that are DW, DD->CW, CL->BC, or CA->DN upgrade style conversions on a captured Lyran ship since you cannot build the center section. Most conversions are allowed because you are simply changing the internal equipment, but building such large extra hull sections is out. One could argue this also applies to Gorn HDD->CM or CL->DNC conversions.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 10:56 am: Edit
"4) SPBs do not use the oversized squadron rule. "
I didn't realize that, but I guess its ok as SPB to SPBH is a 0 EP conversion I think.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 02:53 pm: Edit
"3) Not in the same battle round, each would count as a separate directed damage attack, and you can normally only do one directed damage attack per round. Exception for pursuit battles (when you can attack as many crippled ships as one DD attack). "
Nick, on the multiple escort DD, this was on a pursuit I forgot to include that (oops).
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 12:01 am: Edit
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 09:56 am: Edit
You should ask these questions in the Advanced Ops After Action topic, not here. That way if they need errata, it can be collected together in one document more easily.
Thanks,
Nick
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 11:16 am: Edit
My question was on SWAC & SFG (CV War and SO), so I thought this would be the correct venue.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 12:42 pm: Edit
Yeah, but it was also a question of "do these AO items change CV War and SO"..., and I honestly do not know. It depends on what was intended by AO, so it should be asked there to be delt with when they handle all the AO questions.
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 02:32 pm: Edit
Do CV/CVA pods (for tugs) count against carrier production limits?
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 10:11 pm: Edit
Nick,
If the expedition succeeds, is the Federation required to declare war on the coalition at their earliest opportunity?
In my case the Feds were activated on alliance turn 4, retrograde phase. You previously ruled that the Klingons could not attack the Feds on turn 5 Coalition. If the Feds do not enter Klingon territory on turn 5 Alliance, can the Klingons attack the Federation on Coalition turn 6?
In this case, could the Feds operate in Kzinti space without opening themselves to Klingon attack? When would the Klingon East Fleet be activated?
Thanks!
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 10:22 pm: Edit
Questions on Slow Retreat...
- If not using AO, how many ships can be in a slow retreating force? It's not exactly specified, but it seems that the retreating player can build a full line (ie, command ship + scout + CR ships). So, a [LAV+2xFF], [SAV+FF], [SAV+FF] retreating would all count for compot purposes (although only 18 fighters would count). Is that correct?
- What if the retreating force had more 2x[LAV+2xFF], 2x[SAV+2xFF]? Which ships can count for compot (defender selects as in pursuit)?
- Does using AO change any of those answers? All of a sudden it's not inconceivable to have
[LAV+2xFF], [SAV+2xFF], penal ship, LAS, LAD, 2xSAD, etc in the force (especially retreating from a homeworld assault). This makes the slow units almost immune to any real damage - there's so much there to absorb losses with, it's almost to the point it's not worth it to pursue.
It just seems "wrong" that a slow retreating force would be so robust and able to get away relatively unharmed...
By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 11:38 am: Edit
Question on fighter operation, specifically Federation:
Rule 205.72 "...fighters and PF's can only react for a single hex.."
Rule 501.8 "...fighters cannot move independently of their carriers except by 205.7."
Rule 502.93 Fighter Limit: ...The Federation is able (starting in YR 181) to deploy 4 fighter squadrons in a battle force rather than the usual three. If the 4th squadron is an independent squadron sent to the battle force by a carrier or base which is not in the battle force, it does not count against the command limits.
Rule 318.81 Federation: Certain federation Carriers and carriers with "heavy fighters" have stronger than usual fighter squadrons, but these include the correct number of fighters, they are not included in this rule.
Now the question(#1): Could the Federation conduct independent fighter strikes against a target (say a battle station or Starbase) and use rule 302.352 to "restore" the Fighter groups to full strength for the following attack(s)?
This is assuming no enemy ships or interference from any other source, just an unsupported enemy base (BATS or Starbase) with its assigned Fighters and PF's.
The point to be made, with a CVBG (CVA and CVB) reinforced with a 6 point fighter squadron yeilds 29 pts Compot and assuming sufficient reserves of additional fighter groups to make up the losses
and using max BIR of 4 (plus the minimum of one chosen by the opponent) give BIR of 5. this would mean a minimum of 20% to a max of 35% per combat round.
Put another way, thats 5.8 points(rounded up to 6) damage points to resolve against the opponent per round. Max damage per round is 10.15 points.
Question#2, could the federation add a Drone bombardment squadron to the independent fighter strike? This would mean (depending on year) 3 x 4 point ships or upt to 3 x 6 point ships for an additional 12 to 18 points of compot...
Makes the number increase to 29+12= 41 and a 'min/max' of 8.2 to 14.35 damage pottential...
Please note: this effectively gives to the Federation the ability to "Bust Bases" without taking permanent damage on ships. (this is even superior in comparison to PF's because Fighters replacement is effectively 'free' while PF replacements are not.)
Is this true?
By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 11:43 am: Edit
Sorry, I see that I didnt complete the numbers part of the illustration...Max: 29compot + 18 (for late war DB) at 20% BIR equals 9.4 points damage potential up to a max of 16.45 at 35% BIR (assuming BIR of '5')
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 02:19 pm: Edit
NIck,
This I am very sure has been asked before, but I cannot find it.
In a situation where the defender is going to retreat before combat, and then form the minimal line possible inside the rules, I have a question.
Do the 2 "rejected" flagship candidates still count towards force calculation?
Example to clarify:
6 Ships, CA,CL,DD,3xFF.
Pick command ship, reject CA,CL. DD gets the duty.
3xFF withdraw before combat, leaving only the DD to fight and die, right?
8 ships, 2xCA,2xCL,2xDD,2xFF.
Pick command ship, reject 2xCA. CL gets the duty.
CL,2xDD,FF withdraw before combat. This leaves FF,CL,2xCA. The 2xCA do not have to be in the battleforce, as they are rejected flagships. But, do they count towards 'half the force in the hex' calcualtions? In this situation, the CL as the flagship MUST be on the line, leaving the FF. If the CAs DO count towards the force number, then the FF must also be on the line as 2 is half of 4, but if the CAs do not count, then that means the CL can be all by itself. Is that the correct reading of the rule here?
Thanks Nick.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 04:36 pm: Edit
Another withdraw before combat question:
Do I count all of the friendly ships in the hex when determining eligibility for retreat, or just the ships that are doing the actual withdraw before combat?
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 10:43 pm: Edit
Is the BATS in 3209 active with the 1st fleet and is there any provision preventing it from being upgraded to a SB after the feds are attacked on turn 7? (I think it is and can be.)
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 10:19 am: Edit
Quick Q:
What happens to a MB if the Tug setting it up is Crippled, during deployment?
I've been destroying the base, since Crippled tugs can not do tug missions.
But, I do see an argument for the Base is not destroyed but is also not set up.
Thanx
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 02:48 pm: Edit
Tim Losberg: I couldn't find the discussion I was thinking of, but on more thought it does not apply to this situation at all anyway, since it is definitely not a Rom fighting retreat, only a Fed one. The rules say the Defender conducts his retreat first, then the attacker, and logically fighting retreat is part of that defender (Fed) retreat, so conduct the fighting retreat before the Romulan retreat. So the fighting retreat battle would only use the single Rom garrison ship and the retreating Fed ships, not the retreating Rom ships, since they conduct their retreat second.
Bret: Pods have their own limits (in addition to ship limits), and this is one pod (or "pair" of pods if the race in question uses that scheme) per turn. So a carrier pod/CVA pod does not count against the ship-carrier limits, but counts as the one pod you could build that turn.
John, the rule says if Hydran ships enter Fed space then the Feds join the Alliance like on turn 7. It does not say "may join", it says "joins", so it is not an option, the Feds join and declare war. So if you do not attack (i.e. do not send units into coalition space), then the Coalition could still attack the feds after that, since they did declare war and join the alliance.
Tony, all of the slow units are in one battle, if command limits are exceeded then only ships "under command" would generate compot (like normal pursuit).
Jeff, you have confused me. I can't see how you are getting into this situation. You appear to have fighters alone moving to attack a base which has no supporting ships. This is simply not possible (at least I don't think so). Fighters cannot move independenly of their carrier except by reaction. If the base is alone, there is nothing to react to so the fighters cannot attack it without their carrier. If enemy ships move onto the base then the fighters could react independantly to attack the base, but then there are supporting ships (at least one) at the base, which raises the possability of approach, etc... Also how did the DB ships react there if there were no enemy ships to react to? The only possability I see is so called "agressive reaction", which is a long range reaction to a distant force and "oops, that base is in the way", and fighters cannot do this, they can only use normal reaction to a unit one hex away, fighters NEVER use (205.3), rule (205.72) says so.
Now if you are not talking about reaction, but normal Op move, then fighters cannot do this without their carrier. If the carriers move in as well, which they must if you want to do a normal attack, then yes they can send just the fighters forward into the actual battleforce (possibly... depending on minimum force restrictions), but the carriers will be vulnerable to 3-1 directed damage. Now, if you are questioning a CVBG with extra fighters attacking a lont BATS and winning with little loss to itself, well of course, what did you expect to happen in such a case?
Chris Fant: Well, you do withdrawal before combat BEFORE picking a flagship. But see (302.36), it specifically says unchosen flagships are excused FROM THE CALCULATION, so it is not just excused from the battleforce, it is excused from the calculation itself. So in your second example the CL could be by itself.
Robert, I am not sure what you are asking. You count all the ships in the hex to determine how many are eliglble to withdraw. I don't know what you mean by only counting ships that are withdrawing, why would you only count those? You don't even know what is withdrawing unless you count everything, right?
Lawrence, as far as I can tell the bases that are not in a designated fleet area are active when the race goes to war, i.e. when a player would normally take control of it, (they are not associated with a specific fleet, and there is no rule for their "activation"). So the BATS in your question would seem to be active from Turn #7 assuming the Feds joined the alliance at that time.
Bret, rule (510.222) says the MB is only destroyed if the tug is destroyed or forced to retreat. So a crippled tug could finish a MB setup, i.e. it still met the requirements of (510.222), and it was uncrippled when you originally gave it the "set up MB mission".
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 03:34 pm: Edit
I'm sorry let me clarify a bit on my question. Say I have 10 ships in a hex. 5 of those are eligable to withdraw before combat (it is opposed). Now, in picking a retreat hex for those 5 ships, do I only count those 5 ships to determine my retreat hex, or do I use the whole force of 10 ships to determine that? If I get to use all 10, this could result in open retreat hexes that would be closed to only 5 ships.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 03:39 pm: Edit
Just a clarification to the ruling for Fed activation. If the Feds are activated during retro(or retreat), the Feds can strat ships to the border and have declared war on the Klingon empire. Can the Klingons attack the Feds on the turn after the Feds declare war or must they wait until the turn after the Feds have ahad an operational move segment? Also does the IWR activate the turn after the Feds strat? What effect doies this have on the Kzin/Lyran not being able to enter Fed space except as expeditionary fleets?
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 03:45 pm: Edit
A note on Bill's Clarification: I asked the same question 3 weeks ago. Your answer:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/3323.html?1046116933
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 05:10 pm: Edit
Nick,
Regarding my question, does a slow unit retreating force get free scout & drone slots?
By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 06:33 pm: Edit
Nick, a question regarding non-Fed 3rd way use (502.0), (527.3) and Heavy Fighters (530.0).
The Kzinti, in an AO game permitting the option, have chosen to use the 3rd way rather than PFs.
As noted in (527.3), several sections need to be worked out by players. Here is my best guess at what rules to use in this circumstance, please confirm or correct me. These questions have come up because I've been thinking about "If given the choice, should a race use the third way", not from an actual game, so there is no urgency in answering them.
The Kzinti have the option under (527.16) to purchase heavy fighter replacement factors individually, rather than purchasing an annuity.
New and existing Kzinti Bases get 8 factor heavy fighter squadrons (530.212), but must purchase their annuity (527.143), (502.91) rather getting it for free (530.212).
Existing Kzinti PDU's get one free half squadron of heavy fighters (530.212), rather than using additional standard fighters (527.14), (502.91). New PDUs built need to purchase these (502.91).
The Kzinti SCS may not be built (change to (502.9)), but since the CVA may carry one standard and one eight factor heavy fighter squadron (530.221) this is largely moot.
The Kzinti may produce up to two Heavy Fighter carriers per turn as PFT replacements (527.22), rather than being limited to one per turn after PF introduction (530.223). Any heavy fighter carriers produced count only against the PFT limit, not against the carrier limit, with the exception of the CVA which counts against both.
================
If the Klingons had made the same choice, they would use the same rules, including the use of heavy fighters on PDU's (530.212) rather than doubling the number of standard fighters as the Feds do (502.91).
By Stephen Rasmussen (Razman) on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 10:06 am: Edit
This has probably been asked before, but i cannot find the answer. Does the romulan 3FE count as one ship or 3 ships for strategic movement purposes?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 12:34 am: Edit
Nick as a follow up to the fighting retreat ruling, here is the specific situation, Romulans own 3711, The Feds still have 3611 and 3810. Forces in 3711 attack Bats 3810 (leaving a garrison unit on the planet). another force reacted to the bats, The Romulans realize that their 6 ships cannot defeat hte 4 fed ships and a Bats and declare a retreat after a declined approach battle. The feds then delcare retreat and retreat to 3711.
Under the ruling, the fed force is only required to fight the garrison force (which even at the BIR 0/10 fight it will easily kill) then retreat out at which point the Romulan ships arrive at the planet and maintain control?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 12:15 am: Edit
Nick,
What is the official CR of a Battle-Carrier Tug. Kzinti/Klingon?
Is it 9 or 10?
I know it was discussed to make it 9. But I didn't know if it became official.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 01:31 pm: Edit
Scott:
10
In Advanced Ops, check Annex (754.0), page 64:
"Federation, Kzinti, Klingon, and Lyran tugs get the benefit of command rating bonuses from only one pod at a time. No Tug can have a command rating more than 10 regardless of the pods carried."
All Battle Pods (including single Kzinti, Klingon, Lyran K-pods, Fed LBPs and Gorn LBPs) have +2 CR. This is to conform to SFB's G1.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 01:35 pm: Edit
Ah, an ANNEX!!
Well who looks at those??
By Dave Fowler (Davefowler) on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 08:58 am: Edit
I think I know the answer to this, but wanted to confirm.
If both sides have spent command points for extra ships, and there is a pursuit battle. Can either side toss in extra ships due to the command points?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 10:00 pm: Edit
Sorry I haven't answered questions in a bit, but I should get them wrapped up tomorrow, since I have a free day.
Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 08:05 pm: Edit
Robert, only the ships withdrawing before combat are counted for selecting the retreat hex.
Tony, I would believe so. It is essentially a normal round of combat, the "slow pursuing" player can use free scout and drone ships so... The slow pursuit battle is more like a normal battle round than the actual pursuit battle.
Andrew, Sounds good to me. You may want to let the Kzinti keep their "free" heavy fighters received for bases, since that was given to them as part of the balance of the product, but your mileage may vary. But, as the rule says, details to be worked out by the players, so there isn't really an official answer, or it would already be in the rule...
Stephen, that would be three ships for strat move, see (103.22), last paragraph, 3FE and 3CPC count as three ships for most purposes, but cannot be broken down in combat.
Tim, sounds right. Remember the point of fighting retreat is that you can "blow through" a single ship (even with BIR 0/10), but a sizable force will make it painful or impossable.
Dave, see rule (307.4), command points are not used in pursuit.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 24, 2003 - 12:53 pm: Edit
Nick, I'd like confermation on the rules for the Hydran Expedition activating the Feds. Once a Hydran ship enters the Federation, at what point does the Fed declair War? If it is emediatly, the Klingons should be able to attack on their next turn, even if the Feds did not get an operational move (activated during alliance retreat/retrograde) because the Feds did get a Strat to build up the defence (and scaring the crap out of the High Command). If it is on the Federation player's next turn, the Klingons would have to wait for the Fed attack because he's not at war.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, March 24, 2003 - 01:23 pm: Edit
The Klingons still can't attack till turn 7.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, March 24, 2003 - 01:26 pm: Edit
No, according to rulings the Klinks can attack the Feds regardless if the Feds have attacked the 2nd turn after the Feds were released. So as an example... say the Feds are released T4 retrograde phase, the Klinks can attack the Feds on T6Coalition.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, March 24, 2003 - 01:27 pm: Edit
Hmm......the last ruling I saw was the turn 7 thing. Interseting.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Monday, March 24, 2003 - 01:42 pm: Edit
Chris, look here:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/3323.html?1046116933
and here
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/3618.html?1048531362
Nick's ruling was that the Klingons could not attack the Feds until the Feds had an opportunity to attack the Klingons (my first question). If the Feds passed up their first opportunity, the Klingons could then attack (my second question).
This situtation is occuring in "Return of the Cruiser".
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, March 24, 2003 - 01:51 pm: Edit
I think we all saw the ruling, and are actually a little confused by it. I understand where it is coming from, but if the Klingons realized that the Feds were about to go to war in turn 7 and decided to attack the Feds preemptively, it would make sense that if the Feds can strat ships to the front, send EP's to the Kzin and build production schedule/command point etc., that the Klingons would attack in this case as well.
Nick- Could you bounce this question up to Jeff or SVC to confirm this expectation(which I agree the rules appear to support). i.e. Is this the way a successful expedition is supposed to work?
Are the Klingons going to wait until the Feds actually attack if they know the attack will come, and can do nothing to prevent it.
Bill
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, March 24, 2003 - 11:38 pm: Edit
A question on the limit on Hydran Guild production from AO.
Does the limit of 4 on each ship include the 4xPGS that the Hydrans start with?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 04:17 pm: Edit
Nick, question on captured planet income. If a conquering race captures a planet on say T2.. when do they get the captured planets income? T3 or T4?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 04:55 pm: Edit
Turn 4 would it not?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 12:40 am: Edit
Regarding the Hydrans activating the Federation:
In early 2001, Steve posted a set of F&E Q&A Archives that had been vetted. These were published in CL22 through CL24. I can’t find my copy of CL23. But, I do have the archives on disk. If someone would please double check the following, I would appreciate it:
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 05:01 pm:
F&E Q&A ARCHIVE 6
SCENARIOS
Q: If the Hydran expedition succeeds, what exactly happens to the Feds?
A: The Federation joins the alliance, gears up production, and may attack the Klingons if so desired; see (601.14).
Q: If the Hydran expedition activates the Federation early, do the Organians allow the Federation to go to war with the Klingons?
A: If the Hydran expedition succeeds, the Organians leave immediately and pose no further restriction on the Federation or the Klingons.
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 09:44 am: Edit
Other Orion questions:
Can a carrier group raid as a group or does rule (504.34 - cannot place more than one ship within three hexes of another) prohibit this? If allowed, does this count as one ship or three with regards to (504.31 - can't place second ship in a given race's territory before one in all others).
Can a player bribe the Orion on one turn to not raid his space on a muliple turns, i.e. player bribes 10 points on turn 3 to keep Orions out on turn 3 and turn 4? Is this considered a valid keep out bribe on turn 4 for the purposes of 504.31 above?
For 504.31 above, is a race's territory the original owner or who currently occupies it. If the Kzintis are pinned in their capital hex it would be hard for the Orion to raid that hex, could he raid a Kzinti province currently under Coalition control and count that as his Kzinti raid in order to raid someone else twice?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 03:51 pm: Edit
nevermind, nothing to see here
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 10:39 pm: Edit
Another Pirate question:
When do the players make piracy raid adjustments to their eco forms?
Is it done as soon as the pirate deployment is done and the values can be calculated?
or,
as rule 504.432 states: "... EP's are not received until step 6..."? Since step 6 takes place after player turns (and co-incidentally, combat...) and several pirate ships may no longer exist - shouldn't EP adjustments to the player Eco Forms be done at the end of phase 9... just before the next turn starts?
And f it is accomplished during phase 9, is it allowable to use deficit spending to "pay" the Orion piracy raiding expenses?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 11:07 pm: Edit
Nick, ya know when ya might be able to get to some of these?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 11:11 am: Edit
Nick, Jeff, SVC (or anybody that has authority to answer such questions, as opposed to Cfant answering them),
SVCs quote from CL
"By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 05:01 pm:
F&E Q&A ARCHIVE 6
SCENARIOS
Q: If the Hydran expedition succeeds, what exactly happens to the Feds?
A: The Federation joins the alliance, gears up production, and may attack the Klingons if so desired; see (601.14).
Q: If the Hydran expedition activates the Federation early, do the Organians allow the Federation to go to war with the Klingons?
A: If the Hydran expedition succeeds, the Organians leave immediately and pose no further restriction on the Federation or the Klingons."
Does this specifically allow the Klingons to attack the Federation on the next Coalition turn as the Federation has officially joined the alliance and there are no restrictions on whom the Klingons can attack? A simple Yes or No answer please because what I think should be obvious to everybody is different from what others think should be obvious to everybody.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 11:16 am: Edit
I don't know the answer and could make an effective argument either way. I'd have to study the situation and given that we're now in Origins Gear Up there is no guarantee when I could rule on the matter, and nobody but me could. Best I can suggest is that everybody Email Jeff their argument pro or con in 50 words or less; Jeff can then compile them and send me one document with all of the pro or con answers and I'll see if I can read it sometime.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 11:31 am: Edit
In Cap Log 23, all it says is that the Feds join the alliance, gear up for war, and may attack the Klingons.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 01:27 pm: Edit
nevermind, my question was answered when I looked at the right rulebook.
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 07:13 pm: Edit
Another Orion question (I know you all are sick of these):
Can the Orion initiate combat and if so, on either coalition or alliance phase, or just the phase that the target is?
For example, a crippled Fed CA is sitting by itself somewhere. The Orion player puts a CA on that hex hoping that the Federation player cannot send in reinforcing ships. If the Fed player does not reinforce (and thus would not want to attack the Orion themselves), could the Orion player decide to attack the CA on its own accord. If so, could it do it on the Coalition turn? If there is a base or FRD in the hex, does that make a difference in any of this (Obviously, the Orion can't attack the BATS, could it attack the FRD and does either of these "protect" the Fed CA in some fashion)?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 01:54 pm: Edit
Do the ISC get thr normal 15 turns of war, or is it 20 like the Feds? We are actually involving the ISC in our game, and I cannot find anything on them one way or the other, other than they are not mentioned in the Exhaustion section in 2K, nor in Cap 25.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 02:05 pm: Edit
They almost certainly get 15 turns, after all their economy is about the same size as the Klingons. Besides for a while they will be getting XTP's and a full economy so they will be fat I am sure.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 02:24 pm: Edit
Thank ya Ed, but gotta wait for Nick
By Joseph A. Mannino (Joemannino) on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 05:15 pm: Edit
Alright, I've looked and searched, but couldn't find straight answers on this:
442.64 Free fighter factors are not received until the first carrier is available.
For the Lyrans, that would be Y171 (CVL). The Lyran OB Carrier Production Notes refers to this rule as well. There is a second parenthesied line in 442.64 stating generic units are not available until that date.
The Lyrans start with Aux CV's, so have they already started CV production and receive free fighter factors? Or do they wait until Y171? A search of the archives yielded: http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/2716.html?ThursdayJanuary0220030335pm
Scroll down to the 12/31/02 3:22 post and eventual replies by SVC. I didn't find any other references to this, but that doesn't they're not out there, as I might have missed them...
So, are the free factors available for a COG for the JGP (as well as for Mon pallets) in Y168? Or even before?
Also, what is that line in 532.243 concerning the JGP COG: ...'missing' fighter factors are ignored until needed as replacements...? Are the ignored factors are available as replacements (as if from an FCR) during the battle?
Thanks,
Joe
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 11:38 am: Edit
I have been busy lately, but I will do my best to get the outstanding questions done tonight, since I have some free time again.
Nick
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 11:40 am: Edit
Nick, in Single ship Combat, if the defender is crippled does a defender crippled result in destruction?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 12:10 pm: Edit
...for that matter also, what about any cripples mixed within small-scale combat?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 01:23 pm: Edit
Does anyone know what the factors on a Hydran Templar are?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 01:55 pm: Edit
Templar........Early DN........hmmm.......the only real difference is on the offensive. I would rate it at about 8-12(6). (No Hellbores, only 2 P-1s)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 08:23 pm: Edit
Chris Fant, Yes, the rule specifies an "in service limit", so it would include any ships you start with.
Jimi, say coalition captures an alliance planet on their half of turn 2, then it is part of their supply grid on the alliance half of turn 2, turn 3 coalition is the first turn of possession, turn 4 coalition is the second turn of possession and would generate income then (508.22).
Scott Burlesson, Orions would send one ship, not a group. A carrier group could be built out of leased ships, since they are not under the raid restrictions.
See (504.321), each bribe lasts ONLY one turn.
Limits are based on current controller of territory, not original owner.
Tony, when players do their income at the start of their turn, that is when you would subtract off any lost to orion raiders. So any orions in provinces during the income step reduce the player's income. It is not resolved until later if the Orions get that lost income, but whether they do or not the income is still lost to the main player.
Scott B. Rule (504.343) says the Orions are not required to attack, which would seem to say that they have the option to attack ships or not as the orion player wishes. Since the Orions cannot attack a base or planet, it would make sense that anything at the base or planet also cannot be attacked. Remember, Orion raiders are out for a quick buck, not to fight the military. If you want Orions to help you attack main fleet elements, than that is what leasing is for.
Chris Fant. I can't rule on that since the rule has not been written. Remember that the ISC are just playtest. So in other words, pick something (15 or 20 turns) and playtest it, and then send in the playtest report on whether it worked right or not.
Joseph M. I would say that the at start ships are an exception, i.e. the Lyrans may start with those aux CVs, but they still don't have free fighters until the start of their own carrier production. They probably cannot build more aux CVs or monitor pallets with fighters untill that date either.
I believe the "missing" fighters are ignored until the COG is used as a COG for a HDW carrier. In other words, you pay full price for that COG, when used on the HDW you get all the fighters, when used on the JGP you only get to use some of them.
AO questions should really be in the AO after action report (so they can be answered and compiled into the next captains log), and not here.
Tim L, in single combat, cripples would be destroyed by a cripple result. If a group is crippled, any full strength ships are crippled, any crippled ships in the group are destroyed.
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 12:13 am: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
Scott B. Rule (504.343) says the Orions are not required to attack, which would seem to say that they have the option to attack ships or not as the orion player wishes. Since the Orions cannot attack a base or planet, it would make sense that anything at the base or planet also cannot be attacked.
________________________________________
As follow up questions, then, does a galactic player get to decide that all of his ships are at a base, thus protecting himself? Also, can the pirate player decide to attack the ships on either the coalition player's turn or alliance player's turn? As a house rule until this ruling, we basically said that the orion could only attack on the phasing player's turn.
Please consider this example and its ramifications very carefully. A Federation player retrogrades a bunch of crippled ships back to a FRD that is safely away from coalition attacks but is by itself. An Orion CA raids that hex. If the Orion player is allowed to attack the cripples on the coalition turn, there is nothing keeping the Orion from probably destroying everything in that hex. Now on one hand, that is exactly the type of target the Orions should go after, but on another there should be some defense against this (and also this gives the coaltion advantages of defending against raids that the alliance does not have).
Another note, the coalition has an advantage in leasing ships that the alliance does not have. For those of you who were watching the four horsemen game, I (as the Hydrans) was able to successfully lease 18 ships from the Orions on turn 3. Deployment, though, forced me to indicate that to the Coalition so they were able to move more ships to the south to protect against that. If the coalition had successfully done the same thing, the alliance would not have had the opportunity to change their deployment to compensate. Does anyone agree with me that needs to be changed somehow?
________________________________________
Quote:
Remember, Orion raiders are out for a quick buck, not to fight the military. If you want Orions to help you attack main fleet elements, than that is what leasing is for.
________________________________________
Yea, I know, I keep telling our pirate player this. The problem is I don't want him to help me, he is trying to find loopholes where he can go out and destroy fleets so he can earn the (504.44) bonuses.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 12:31 pm: Edit
I agree, even though I don't play with Orion Pirates if I did that would be a deal breaker.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 01:14 pm: Edit
Nick, if using option C (repair ships) for Ceds repair (308.131) can the repair ship use any remaining repair points on non Carrier ships in that hex?
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 02:31 pm: Edit
If two alliance capitals fall do the Tholians become active and are any of their fleets released? I know they go to a limited war economy and are able to build their full build schedule however I am not clear as to whether or not this actiaves them.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 10:59 am: Edit
Scott B, I suppose all the ships in a hex with a raiding Orion could be at a base, the Orion is really there to raid the commerce, not attack the warships. Any battle would be resolved on that player's turn, not both halves of the turn. Possibly the thing to say would be that a race must lease it's own pirate ships, no pooling of money for alliance/coalition to lease ships or bribe pirates. Rule (504.332) mentions the "race leasing the ships" so I would say the intention of the rule is that each race must lease it's own ships using money from its own treasury. You could transfer money from race A to race B, which could then be used to lease pirate ships for race B, but I don't think race A can directly lease pirate ships for race B.
Tim L., NO you don't get to repair non-carrier ships in the CEDS repair step, NEVER NEVER NEVER do you get to do this. Not even with left over repair ships points. If there are left over points and no more carriers/escorts to repair, too bad, they go unused since that is the only mission that that repair ship can do that turn.
Edward R., the rule says they get increased economy and can build ships normally but are NOT AT WAR, so nothing would be released. There is nothing that says they are activated, so they are not.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 11:05 am: Edit
Even though in F&E the pirates are operated as one entity that can send ships anywhere on the map, remember that this is not what is really going on, it is a simplification for game purposes.
Really, there are different cartels in different areas. It is easy for the Feds to pay money to the local cartels to lease ships to add to their fleet. It is easy for the Hydrans to pay money to their local Orion cartels to lease ships for their purposes. It may be impossible for the Feds to pay money to the local cartel to send ships halfway across the map, since that would be sending local Orion ships into other cartel areas (which will cause Orion-Orion fighting, meaning your leased ships may not even make it to the destination race), also very difficult for the Feds to get money shipped to one of the Hydran space cartels to get ships for the Hydrans. For that reason each race should have to lease it's own pirate ships.
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 11:50 pm: Edit
Got another question, but at least this one doesn't concern the Orion pirates.
This situation came up in tonights game:
A lone Kzinti CVE (sans escorts from previous battles...) is attacked by a Lyran fleet.
During battle force / flagship determination, can the Ftr squadron be considered a potential flagship (with a command rating of 3!)
Then the ftr squadron chosen as the flagship and the CVE excluded from the battle line?
This would potentially allow the CVE to retreat from the battle, while the ftrs sacrifice themselves for the good of the Hegemony
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 09:28 am: Edit
Not if the fleet generates enough damage, remeber 3:1 for a carrier providing fighters.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 09:54 am: Edit
Tony, (302.32) says the flagship candidates are the three units with the highest command ratings. Fighter squadrons/PF flotillas do not have command ratings, so cannot be flagships. Rule (303.7) says when there are only fighters and/or PFs present in the hex, the battle force has an ASSUMED command rating of 3 and there is NO FLAGSHIP. So if you have ships present, fighter squadrons cannot be a flagship, and if there are only fighters present, there is NO flagship.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 11:06 am: Edit
Rather a long one about Stasis ships & carrier groups. Klingons have a line which includes 2 D7A's, the kzinti have a CVA(+adm) and 2CV each escorted by 2MEC and an FEK.
As far as I understand it the stasis ships can only declare the FEK's as targets.
Questions - there are only three FEK's and the D7A's are capable of up to 6 attempts between them. Are they able to declare multiple attempts on each target (IE each FEK is rolled for twice).
Assuming that the rolls on the first two FEK's are successful - what are the eligible ships if the roll on the third results in a) defender selects b) random.
Thanks
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 01:13 pm: Edit
I'd like to see a complete example of that also. What ships are eligible for selection for the Klingon? Which ones can the Kzinti select?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 10:31 pm: Edit
OK, I'm assuming that each D7A is going for three targets each. After freezing the two and getting a random on the third, the Klingons would select the MEC in each group (no choice in this by (312.235)), the Kzinti choice is the next MEC in each group (again, no choice due to (312.235)). The FEK, being the original target, cannot be selected by either side. Regardless of which MEC is frozen, the second D7A can only select the three FEKs (312.27) with the first two with a -1 modifier (312.202). The Klingons best hope is to randomized on the fourth and fifth attempts but note that the defender can pick the unfrozen FEK in either attempt (as long as it is unfrozen).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 12:27 am: Edit
The initial choices must all be declared before any are resolved. The first D7A must pick the smallest escort from each group, the FEK in each group. The second D7A must pick the same ships for its three attempts.
So if the first two FEKs are frozen, and the third result is defender selects, then the defender can choose an MEC from any group.
If the first two FEKs are frozen, and the third result is random, then the Klingon would pick MECs as his three options, and the Kzinti would pick the other MECs as his 3 options.
The second D7A would then roll with the minus modifier for two of the FEKs, and normally on the third FEK if it is still unfrozen.
I believe everything Stewart said above is correct.
Basically, the attacker can only select one ship per carrier group to try to freeze (and remember that all initial stasis attempts must be declared before any are resolved). A second ship per group could be frozen by random or defender selection (312.271). Within these limits, if there are not enough valid targets, you start doubling up numbers for random selection if that should occur.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 04:08 am: Edit
Thanks Stewart and Nick.
Just one follow-up -
Is it possible for one stasis ship to declare multiple attempts at a single target. Either by choice or because there are (for example) only two carrier groups on the line so only two valid targets and three attempts (or would the stasis cruiser be limited to only two attempts in this example).
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 10:33 am: Edit
Aren't groups of fighters legal for the attacker to select with stasis? In the above case, would not thise fighter groups have to be chosen before any ships get doubled up?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 09:20 pm: Edit
JamesS, yes you could, there is nothing in the rules prohibiting the SFG players from using multiple attempts on one target. (312.201) gives the number of targets (per SFG) then the target. Against the two carrier group battleline, the SFG player may not 'double-up' on the smallest escort, due to (312.271).
RobertP, nope, an SFG can only 'freeze' one fighter or PF factor, not a squadron/flotilla (312.217).
Nick, in the above 3 carrier group, would the B10A (or SBA) be limited to the three FEKs (3 attempts due to (312.271))??
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 07:25 pm: Edit
Rule (312.224) specifically does prohibit multiple attempt against a single target: "No more than one attempt can be made on each target by each SFG unit/starbase." And rule (312.223) confirms that even a B10A cannot use both SFG against a single target.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 08:59 pm: Edit
Erk, that'll teach me to only look under 'targeting' instead of looking the next section as well....
By David Johnson (Djj) on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 10:44 pm: Edit
What is the correct setup zone for the Kzinti Marquis fleet (AO and F&E2K differ)?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 10:23 am: Edit
David, I guess it depends on which one you are playing with then. Advanced Ops is correct, but I don't know if the change was intended to apply to F&E2K as well (i.e. playing without expansions).
Robert, Rule (312.216) allows INDIVIDUAL fighters or PFs to be frozen (not squadrons or flotillas). The defender CANNOT select fighters/PFs for random selection, see (312.233). Also, the random selection rule specifically has the term "ship" in (312.231), so the attacker would not be required to select fighters/PFs as random targets before doubling up numbers on a limited selection of targetable ships. Rule (312.231) says that if there are fewer than 3 SHIPS, some will have more than one number, but every ship must be given at least one number. In random selection, fighter factors/PFs are an OPTION for the attacker, forbidden for the defender, and are never required to be given numbers.
And yes, each stasis unit (even one with multiple stasis generators) can only make one declared attempt against a given target. Note that (312.224), last sentence, allows two different stasis units to target the same unit in a given round.
By David Johnson (Djj) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 10:45 am: Edit
Nick:
Could you bump my question up to get a more definitive answer then if using F&E2K? Wouldn't you think that AO is most correct and that set-up areas are consistent no matter which module you are using?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 12:53 pm: Edit
WEll, if you are not uing the AO rules, then you would not use the AO setup
By David Johnson (Djj) on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 03:29 pm: Edit
Chris:
I beleive the set-up area in AO is correct and the one in F&E2K is wrong no matter which module(s) you use -- that is why I'd like Jeff or SVC to confirm.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 02:48 pm: Edit
If you are maxed-out with Prime Teams and one gets wounded can I just "retire" that team and get take the free team that would be produced during the next player turn?
(The above is CO related.)
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 03:14 pm: Edit
Thats been asked and answered soo many times, the only thing I haven't heard is why I can't do it. It really does make sense if your "producing" a prime team you should be able to heal one instead (i.e. use the personell that would form the new one as replacements)
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 03:36 pm: Edit
I think the explination is in the description for the Prime teams. You are not really producing them, they are just being called from other duties to military service.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 03:56 pm: Edit
Indeed. ANd, with no penalty what-so-ever from taking a wounded PT, who wouldn't send 2 or three offmap for survey, or other dangerous missions.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 02:16 pm: Edit
Here is the situation.
Alliance Turn 5 a Hydran ship gets into Kzinti space.
Coalition Turn 6, I attack the Hydran Capital and devestate it. Thus invoking the Capital Defense Priority.
Alliance Turn 6, is the Hydran able to declare that Hydran ship 'homeless' before it is forced back to Hydran space by the CDP?
Just wondering when specifically a ship is declared 'homeless', as the Coalition did something before Alliance Turn 6, so if the CDP goes into effect Coalition Turn 6, the Alliance doesn't have a chance to declare the ship homeless.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 03:11 pm: Edit
If I recall, CDP, just force you to pull forces from enemy space, not allied space.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 03:30 pm: Edit
If they are in the enemies (or their ally's territory) yes.
If they are in Expeditionary Fleets, or Homeless ships, they can ignore the call, from the CDP
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 03:37 pm: Edit
Chuck, from the Master Errata File (522.13) Wounded prime teams count against the total number a race is allowed to have. A player cannot voluntarily lose or retire a wounded prime team to make room for another team.
Scott Tenhoff, the ship could be declared homeless. Note there is nothing in the Capital Defense rule preventing new ships from being declared homeless. And since "return home as soon as possible" means during the movement stages, and since declaring homeless/expeditionary forces comes before movement, nothing prevents you from declaring more ships homeless/expeditionary before you have to move them home.
Chris, totally the other way around. CDP forces you to pull forces from allied space, never enemy space. When the capital is in danger, you must concentrate on your space and enemy space (to knock the enemy away from the homeworld), and you have no time to help allies.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 03:55 pm: Edit
Ahh. Thanks Nick.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 08:29 pm: Edit
Nick, can you clarify the revised SFG chart categories from http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/erratfne.html
the first column is Random frozen, next is defender frozen, next is nothing frozen, next is something frozen and last is total disaster.
Which one is the Attackers target is frozen and which one is defender selects?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 11:33 pm: Edit
TimL, the columns should be Target, Random, Defender, Missed and Disaster....
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 12:23 am: Edit
Yeah, those are a bit messed up now that I look at it. Stewart is right. The column marked "something frozen" is incorrect as there is no such category. You almost have to "slide" the top line of text over one column.
The 7 column descriptions should be (left to right):
Stasis Ship Type, Target Ship Frozen, Random Frozen, Defender Frozen, Nothing Frozen, Total Disaster, % of Freezing Something.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 08:59 pm: Edit
Nick are 1707-1708 active hexes with the Northern Fleet or inactive with the Eastern Fleet?
Or are they something else?
By Stephen Rasmussen (Razman) on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 10:47 pm: Edit
I need to clarify how a couple of rules interact.
The situations it this. The romulans have a significant fleet at their starbase nearest the tholian border. unfortunately every thing else within 8 hexes has been destroyed by the fed invasion. so that starbase and fleet are on a separate supply grid.
One rule states that fleets supported by a separate supply grid myst pay 1 ep for every 5 ships. another rule says that the ships 'at the starbase' are in supply. my opponant interprets that to be only if they remain at the starbase, then they are in supply for the combat phase but not for the movement phase. I thought that that rule meant that those ships at the starbase are in supply for both movement and combat.
I would like to take most of that fleet three hexes away from the starbase and pin his reserve fleet. the question is, would those romulan ships be in supply or out of supply when we fight that pinning battle.
Steve Rasmussen
ISS utah
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 09:13 am: Edit
I am being forced to ask a question that I already believe I know the answer to.
You are able to upgrade Klingon VP2 pods to VP3 pods now, since you can do this can you upgrade the "pods" on the Klingon CVT so that it has 6 fighter factors?
Thanks,
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 10:50 am: Edit
Not really. those are hard welded. We may provide a conversion in the future but it is not implemented at this time.
By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 10:57 am: Edit
Steve, I thought the SFB background on the CVT indicated that they were permanent conversions only in the sense that the Klingons never stopped operating those tugs in the carrier role, and that the pods weren't actully welded on (i.e. it was a doctrine thing and not an engineering one).
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 10:59 am: Edit
Whatever. The point is that no conversion is in the F&E game system at this time.
By William Hughes (Patchfur3) on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 11:08 am: Edit
May an out of supply ship use strategic movement?
Federation ships that are on Gorn bases while the Federation supply lines get nuked are out of supply, but still at a strategic movement node.
Presuming they are not paid for by the Gorns how would this work for them?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 03:57 pm: Edit
Lawrence: Hexes 1707 and 1708 are North Fleet, hexes 1807 and 1808 are East Fleet, and are active, or inactive, with those fleets.
Stephen, those ships would be in supply. Rule (410.4) says when you are on the base, you are in supply. Rule (410.2) says supply for Opmove is determined at the start of movement (i.e. when you are still on the base, hence "in supply for movement"), and for combat you can count supply at the start of the turn (i.e. when you were on the base) for purposes of combat as well.
Rule (413.41) is to give supply to ships not at a base drawing supply from a partial grid. In other words, if you has 5 ships on a starbase (which is a partial grid), and 5 more ships in supply range of that partial grid but not the main grid, you pay to supply the distant ships (at start of the turn, counts for movement, combat, etc.), but the 5 ships on the starbase are supplied for free, as noted above.
Of course since the ships move off of the starbase, they are not in supply for retrograde due to (410.24) requiring you to actually be in supply at the point of combat or retrograde. Note, even though (410.22) allows you to carry supply status from the start of the turn into combat, this does not count for purposes of (410.24), i.e. (410.22) does not count for (410.24).
William, supply status has no effect on strategic movement ability. Any ships (fed, gorn, kzinti) that use Gorn SMNs count against the Gorn strat move limits, regardless of whether they are supplied from their owning race, homeless or adopted by the Gorn (or someone else), or whether they are out of supply.
In otherwords, unsupplied Fed ships can use strat movement through gorn space, even if they have operational movement and combat penalties for being unsupplied. This counts against the Gorn Strat Move limits like any other ships (The Gorn pay for fuel for strat move even if they are not paying for supplies for Op move or combat via homeless rules).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 11:01 pm: Edit
Hey Nick, can you use an SFG on FRDs?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 09:19 pm: Edit
Chris, see (312.218), FRDs are treated as ships.
By Todd Lovas (Qwerty) on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 11:43 pm: Edit
Okay, tried to find something about this in the archives but had no luck.
I have a D5V group missing the F5E sitting in open space with a crippled F5. May I do either of the following during CEDS/Retrograde step.
1. Retrograde the D5V,AD5 and crippled F5 to a BATS and then spend 2 EP, 1 EP to repair and 1 to convert to a F5E
2. Spend 1 EP converting the crippled F5 to a crippled F5E then retrograde the 3 ships to a BATS and repair F5E for 1 EP.
I realize that these are essentially the same things.
Thanks and sorry if this has already been answered.
By David Johnson (Djj) on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 11:49 pm: Edit
Nick:
Did you bump my question up SVC or Jeff to get a more definitive answer on the Marquis setup areas (F&E2K vs AO)?
I could be wrong but I really think that they are consistant no matter what expansion you use. Please confirm -- thanks.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 01:49 pm: Edit
Todd, number 1 is what would likely happen. If you try number 2, you must use a repair ship to repair the F5 (since you are in open space and not at a base or FRD), and then it would cost more for field repairs instead of base repairs, so you could do it either way, but retroing to the base to repair is cheaper.
David, oops forgot, got it sent off now. Sorry.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 02:31 pm: Edit
Nick,
For Todd's question, I though that only carriers & real escorts (not adhoc) could retro. So, I don't think the F5 could retro then repair (even though it will be converted that phase). Am I missing something?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 03:30 pm: Edit
Oh, right, the F5 cannot use CEDS non-phasing retro (brain fart) since it is not part of a carrier group (carrier or escort), it is just a combat ship. Sorry. It could be converted to replace the lost escort in that hex, but cannot retro (unless it is actually your turn, then it can if it was in a combat hex).
Thanks Tony...
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 04:17 pm: Edit
So you would have to accelerate production of next turns F5E to that hex to fix the carrier group, correct?
Bill
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 05:47 pm: Edit
no, you could convert the F5 in the hex.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 08:27 pm: Edit
You can do CEDS conversions to replace lost escorts in open space (using conversion capacity from a base, even if you don't have to move to the base) but you cannot repair in open space without using a repair ship.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 08:46 am: Edit
Nick, quick question on retreats. In an ongoing game I (the coalition) attacked and captured the Kzinti Homeworld. The Kzinti's retreat. They still own large planet 1502. I thought I've read somewhere (but cannot find atm) that the Kzinti offmap is 'closer' to the Kzinti homeworld. Where do the Kzinti retreat? offmap or 1502? or do they get to choose between the two.
Thanks in advance.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 09:28 am: Edit
Ok, I'm a little confused about carrier tugs after rereading the escort rules from carrier war. What is the maximum number of escorts a tug+CVpod (6 fighters) can have? I thought it was 2, but is it 3 like a regular carrier?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 10:59 am: Edit
Jimi, the off map and the planet are the same distance, both have a supply range of zero hexes since both are a source of supply, so you can pick between the two, barring any enemy ships at the planet to affect retreat priorities. Remember, you have to pick between the retreat hexes with the shortest supply paths to a supply point, both off map and planets are sources of supply, so have a supply path range of zero.
Edward, carrier tugs are treated under rule (515.26), the number of fighters determines if it is treated as a CVL, CV, or CVA for determining number of allowed escorts.
4 or fewer fighter factors, treat like CVL, one or two escorts.
5-10 fighter factors, treat like CV, two or three escorts.
11 or more fighter factors, treat like CVA, three or four escorts.
So a carrier tug with 6 fighter factors (if escorted) needs a minimum of two escorts, and has a maximum limit of 3 escorts.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 04:12 pm: Edit
If two small ships engage one small ship, with each side deploying less than 14 compot, the battle must be resolved according to small scale combat rules. Those rules send the fight to be resolved on the single combat table. If one side is destroyed, does the other side get its salvage, as it would in single combat, or does each side get its own salvage, as they would in non-single ship combat?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 04:21 pm: Edit
A question about reserve movement. Rule 203.731 allows a reserve fleet to move to a non-battle hex if there are enemy units blocking supply to friendly units in combat. What if there are friendly units that are cut off from supply due to enemy movement, but those forces are not in combat?
Could reserves open the supply path to a fleet that is cut off from supply, but not in combat?
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 02:18 am: Edit
Nick, concerning your answer to Edward, about carrier tugs (rule 515.26) :
Rule 515.42 says "Carriers which do not normally have escorts (757.6) can be used to form carrier groups. They can be assigned one or two escorts.
Deluxe F&E (1993 edition) has the single ship carrier table (757.6) as including the Fed CVL, the Orion CVL, the Romulan SUP, and "Any Carrier Tug, expecting the Klingon CVT"
However, that table no longer exists in F&E2K, and 757.6 points us to the SIT to see if a ship is a single ship carrier. Carrier tugs are not listed on the SIT. In AO, the SIT does show the VP and VAP pods; it does not list them as single ship carriers.
So, uh, my question is: Are Carrier Tugs no longer single ship carriers? Can I no longer have my Kzinti Tug with 2 CV pods as a 14 point compot unit in the formation slot anymore ? And if they do still count as single ship carriers, then how many escorts can I use for my Fed TG with VAP pods? Zero, one, two, three, and/or four? (Note, I believe Joe Stevenson once ruled exactly that, but that may have been before F&E2K).
Thanks a bunch!
Edit: I just noticed the carrier tug is in the index for F&E2K. It pointed me to rule 501.1 - that rule basically describes how to use a single ship carrier, and how most carriers operate in groups with their standard escorts. Since nowhere in F&E2K are the standard escorts defined for tugs with carrier pods, that implies to me that they are still single ship carriers. Do they possibly lose that status when using the Carrier War module?
Thanks a double bunch, and sorry for my being such a bother!
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 07:15 pm: Edit
Kevin.
Polite question of this asked in general discussions
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 09:56 pm: Edit
Todd, since you are using the (310.0) rules, those salvage rules would apply.
Rule (318.7) says to use (310.0) with any listed modifications, and there is no salvage modification.
Robert, it specificaly says in combat, and specifically mentions the ensuing combat phase, so it means only that situation and no other.
Kevin, you can decide whether your carrier tug will be single ship or escorted. At the start of the combat phase, if you don't assign escorts, then it is a single ship carrier. If you assign any escorts, then use rule (515.26) to determine the number needed (not the one or two provided by the single ship carrier rule (515.42)). So a tug with 12 fighter factors with no escorts assigned counts as one ship for command purposes. A tug with 12 fighter factors with only one escort assigned counts as 4 ships for command due to (515.26), (treat as a CVA with a minimum of 3 escorts), but if that one escort is destroyed, it is again a single ship carrier (one command slot, not 4) as per (515.42).
So even though they seem to have been left of the SIT (and annex (757.6) is now "gone"), carrier tugs are still single ship carriers.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 11:52 pm: Edit
Thanks, Nick.
By John V. Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 11:05 am: Edit
Nick, maybe I am blind, but I cannot find the AO after action report to read the questions asked. How do I find it?
John
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 12:03 pm: Edit
After action reports is the third section down on the top level directory - in bewteen 'company policy' and 'The tournament Zone'
there are current 3 sections with AAR - AO is the bottom one.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 12:08 pm: Edit
A capital assault question.
Under 551.553
If the defender has no mobile forces left (they have all been destroyed) and all of the non mobile forces are deployed in one system. Then if the attacker offers a battle at a planet that the defender can't put up a battle line (because he has absolutely no mobile force left), does this force the defender to withdraw from the capital as it seems to indicate when it states that if the defender refuses to put up a battle force after all bases and PDU's are destroyed he must withdraw?
By John V. Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 12:44 pm: Edit
Thanks, Richard.
John
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 05:19 pm: Edit
Edward, essentially yes, the defender would have to retreat. However, note that such a situation will not occur unless ALL planets are devastated and all PDUs destroyed as required by (551.553). If all planets are not devastated, the defender does not need to leave.
So keep in mind, that in order to devastate all planets in order to force the defender to leave under (551.553), the attacker will have to fight at the one planet with static defending ships (to devastate it), unless of course, it was devastated already from previous action (and in that case why did you put all your static ships there?).
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 11:48 pm: Edit
Thanks
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 04:14 pm: Edit
Nick, question on restoring shipyards. If a player loses his capital it says in rule 511.31 "The race immediately designates a new capital, which can be a planet or starbase. This must be an off-map area if the race has one". This rule specifies that it has to be a planet or sb that the replacement shipyard is placed on. Now on rule 511.36 it says ". A race can have only one primary shipyard operating at any given time. If a new shipyard is created, and then the original capital is recaptured, the race can begin the six-turn procedure to establish a shipyard at the capital, but when this shipyard is completed, the (off-map) shipyard ceases to exist and cannot be reactivated without going through the six-turn procedure, including the expense, again". Which does NOT specify if the new shipyard has to be built onto an existing shipyard. So does this mean I can start a new shipyard over a Planet and not forced to start one over a Starbase?
Thanks in advance
Jimi
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 06:17 pm: Edit
Jimi, I am not sure, as that is somethign I have never noticed before. I shall confer with Jeff...
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 10:58 pm: Edit
Nick can partial repairs be done using field repair ships? (I do not have enough repair capacity in the repair ships to totally complete a small stack of ships and if I use the extra as partial then the BATS there can finish the job on my next turn.)
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 12:09 pm: Edit
If a convoy (with and op move max of 2) survives after a slow retreat; how far can it move in immediate retro (302.742-C)? Before you answer check out SVC's backfeed response (below) to the new CO rule for commercial convoys (443.21).
x443.21) Standard Convoys Op move 2: are these intended to faster? Reminder also that Slow Retreat moves three hexes immediately to a retro point. If they op move slower (2) should their slow unit retreat also limit their immediate retro to range two also? STRONG -- 20 APR 2003 SVC changed to speed 2, which reduces their effect even more. Only 2 hexes in slow unit retro.
By James Wood (Jwood314) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 01:42 am: Edit
My question and semi rant below.
> capital assault question.
>nder 551.553
>f the defender has no mobile forces left (they >ave all been destroyed) and all of the non mobile forces are deployed in one system. Then if the attacker offers a battle at a planet that the defender can't put up a battle line (because he has absolutely no mobile force left), does this force the defender to withdraw from the capital as it seems to indicate when it states that if the defender refuses to put up a battle force after all bases and PDU's are destroyed he must withdraw?
>Edward, essentially yes, the defender would have to retreat. However, note that such a situation will not occur unless ALL planets are devastated and all PDUs destroyed as required by (551.553). If all planets are not devastated, the defender does not need to leave.
So keep in mind, that in order to devastate all planets in order to force the defender to leave under (551.553), the attacker will have to fight at the one planet with static defending ships (to devastate it), unless of course, it was devastated already from previous action (and in that case why did you put all your static ships there?). - Answer
I like to defend in depth, defenders try not to spread there forces out so they are weak everywhere. This makes defending a captial impossible.
So basically the game is broken. Ed is talking about our current game. The Federation home system has every planet devestated, there are no more PDUs, and all the SBs are destroyed on turn 8. There is nothing the Alliance can do to stop this. So in order to obey the rules I have to split up my static ships across all of my systems, and Ed picks on 1 system until there are no more ships, and I have to leave the capital because I can't go there. This makes a lot of sense. If this is the rule, then we are done with our game. What is the rational behind this rule? The game can not be won by the Alliance with this rule. Gee Mr. big bad Klingon race, we will defend the most important part of our Federation, the ship yard, but since you are over that minor planet way over there, and we choose to defend our shipyard we have to flee the home system. That makes a lot of sense. Oh, but I can break up my static ships into 4ths, and then you can go beat up 5/8ths of my fleet and beat me that way also, another brilliant idea. I like the idea of static and mobile defense, that makes sense to me, but the I have to retreat becaue I choose not to fight at a certain system does not make any sense. Does this rule seem strange to you?
Basically all capitals under this rule are very easy to take. The defender sticks his static defenses over his shipyard, makes sense to me. The Coaltion goes in and tears down and devestates all of the other planets, trying to force the defender to destroy and cripple as much of the mobile fleet as possible. The Coaliton then goes in and tears down the capitol PDUs and the SB, and devestates the planet. Then fights only the mobile fleet over a non important planet, and when the defender can't do anything he has to retreat. So you cut the defending fleet in half.
Not a very coherent argument, but pain killers do that to you. I think you get my drift. What is your opinion since this seems cut and dry in the rules, which ruins the game.
Cheers
James
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 04:47 am: Edit
Something is very very bad if the Coaltion took Earth on turn 8. I myself blame that point system you guys use.
But yeah, it does seem strange to be forced to retreat because you have tons of ships one place, and none at another.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 04:49 am: Edit
One note, no where does it say that you must put static ships in equal numbers at each system. It just says you split the ships half and half, and then assign the static ships as you choose. So, you could put ALL your static ships at the Capital/Shipyard planet itself, and leave the mobile fleet to make a fight of it at the other planets.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 08:45 am: Edit
If the attacker has enough ships to devestate every outer planet, the capital planet and the shipyard then they have won the hex anyways. My question is how in hell did the Coalition devestate the entire earth homeworld with 3 starbases on T8??
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 09:39 am: Edit
In our game the Fed capital battle is a very close affair.
Right now the Alliance has lost 30 ships the Coalition 160. The Alliance has a small stack of cripples and the Coalition has about 30 to 40 cripples. The allaince has about 66 ships left and the Coalition has about 33.
If the coaltion does not have to fight in the Earth system where the Feds have their static fleet and have spent their comand point we win. If we do have to fight there we lose.
I'm not sure that capitals are "easy to take" it mearly means they must be defended differently. You need to split up your static force, not voluntarily take damage on PDU's and never ever damage a mobile force ship.
By James Wood (Jwood314) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 11:18 am: Edit
Any Coalition player can execute a massive turn 8 attack on the federation capital, nothing the alliance can do to stop it. However the issue is the rule that says I can't defend the shipyard. If a player attacks a planet that is devestated, and I don't have any mobile ships left, then I must retreat from the capital. This rule is wrong. After all of the money, and time I have invested in not just this game, but the dozens of previous games I have played, I would really like some sort of reason for this rule. I believe the rule is broken. On another note, if the Coaltion takes teh fed capital, they win. Almost regardless of the cost.
James
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 11:29 am: Edit
I will ask about that rule, but remember, the shipyard is not so much at a particular planet as it is spread throughout the capital hex. It really doesn't have a more specific "location" beyond just in the capital hex. You cannot destroy a shipyard by attacking just the capital planet (and so cannot defend the shipyard from a single planet), you must take the entire hex (and thus defend the shipyard by defending the entire hex), and if all the capital defenses are destroyed, and the planets devestated, and the mobile forces destroyed, you have pretty much lost. But I will ask about the situation of having a significant number of static ships (in relation to the attacking forces) left at one planet and unable to move given the way the rule is setup.
By David Lang (Dlang) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 01:40 pm: Edit
nick, in this case every planet in the hex is devestated, but there is still a small fleet there.
why should the fleet either be forced to split up or retreat? why can't it stay as one fleet and force the coalition to fight them as a unit
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 01:52 pm: Edit
Conversly why can't the coalition take control of the other 3 systems while the alliance is sitting in 1 system.
By David Lang (Dlang) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 01:59 pm: Edit
Edward, good question, (the answer really boils down to simplifying game mechanics probably), but in this case why would it matter if the system the alliance is sitting in is devestated with a 500 ship fleet or has 20 PDUs and 3xSB with no ships? the existing game rules say that in the second case the coalition is forced to attack the alliance, but in the first case the alliance is forced to retreat and the coalition captures the hex.
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 02:15 pm: Edit
Nick:
check p101 of CL#22
________________________________________
Quote:
(511.53) If all bases and PDUs in the hex have been destroyed and all planets have been devastated, all "static" ships are transferred to the "mobile" fleet element
________________________________________
It seems that this applies here.
I knew we had been here before
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 02:26 pm: Edit
Oh good show Richard!!!
It would appear that the Alliance can all defend wherever they wish.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 03:12 pm: Edit
Ah, so the problem has already been solved. I totally forgot about that item, although it is in the master errata.
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/erratfne.html
So after PDUs/bases are gone and planets are devestated, there is no more static ship element either.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 03:47 pm: Edit
Good show, Richard! I knew it would be something simple like that - and if not, something like that would be hastily inserted into the game. Kudos for finding it!
By David Johnson (Djj) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 03:52 pm: Edit
Nick/Jeff/SVC:
Any luck getting an answer on the Marquis deployment zone question?
We are setting up this weekend and need an answer soon. Thanks.
(705.0) What are the correct deployment zone boundaries for the Kzinti Marquis fleet (AO differs from F&E2K)?
By James Wood (Jwood314) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 04:42 pm: Edit
Excellent!
Now that makes sense to me. Thanks for the help.
James
No longer on Vicaden.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 04:51 pm: Edit
Are you talking about the difference of three hexes in the Marquis?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 11:41 pm: Edit
I sent the Marquis question to Jeff, but haven't gotten a response yet.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 07:03 pm: Edit
Nick, for calculating compot for single ship combat/raids, do you add hybrid fighters in or are they not concidered for purposes 310.2
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 11:31 am: Edit
I will be able to clear up any unanswered questions tonight. In the meantime, here are a couple of responses from Jeff Laikind on the shipyard/starbase question and the Marquis setup question:
===========================================
Shipyard construction:
My take on it is that the shipyard and the SB are two separate animals. While a SB is not essential to build a shipyard, it does come in handy, as no conversions can be performed without one.
For example (511.33) says that a capital may perform a major conversion "if it has a starbase", when no shipyard exists.
Marquis deployment:
The change to the Marquis set-up is likely to apply to vanilla F&E, as well. The original Klingon East Fleet deployment did not have the caveat about hexes 1707 and 1708. But now it does. I don't see a change, however, in (601.12) triggering Fed entry if either province is entered.
===============================================
So if your new capital has no starbase, you can still build a shipyard in six turns, but can't do conversions during construction (or any conversions there at all) without a starbase. And the Marquis change is for vanilla F&E as well.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 11:43 am: Edit
Thanks Nick.
By David Johnson (Djj) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 12:53 pm: Edit
Jeff:
Thanks for confirming that this now applies to F&E modules for the Marquis: "Set up in provinces 1902 and 1803 but not within two hexes of Klingon Neutral Zone but includes 1704."
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 02:39 pm: Edit
DAvid, I think Jeff said that the AO setup is correct.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 02:59 pm: Edit
I think we changed the rules in AO because the old ones were a problem.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 08:59 pm: Edit
Lawrence, I can find no enabling rule for partial repairs from repair ships. The repair rule (420.421) says you can do partial repairs so long as the ship being repaired stays in the same hex as the unit doing repairs, and this is not the case with repair ships, which are only in the field temporarily.
Chuch, I can't imagine that commercial convoys would be any different from normal convoys, since they have the same movement restrictions, so it is probably 2 hexes in slow retreat/retro as well.
Tim, fighters are added in. Such a case is essentially already in the rules in advanced ops under (318.72), i.e. treated as a force of more than one ship (or equivalent), but less than three ships (or equivalents). So, say, a Hydran ship with three fighters (hybrid or otherwise), could be called 1.5 ship equivalents, and thus would fall under (318.72), which tells you how to use such a unit with (310.0).
I think that is all the questions, if I missed anyone, please speak up.
Nick
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 12:05 am: Edit
Raiding question.
If a raider targets a hex where a TUG is setting up a MB, (for this example, the TUG is the only enemy unit present), and the TUG refuses battle is the MB considered destroyed?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 03:03 am: Edit
deleted by poster
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 11:11 am: Edit
Chris, no the MB would be fine as far as the first step goes. Of course, if the tug does not attempt to stop the raider, then the raider gets to either raid the province OR do an alternative attack on something in that hex, and the alternative attack could be against the tug, and if the tug is destroyed, then the MB would be gone as well...
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 02:08 pm: Edit
Cool. THat is what I thought Thank ya.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 11:35 pm: Edit
capital assault question.
If the capital has been wiped clean and new PDU's are placed but not yet actiavated, does the attacker have to destroy them before 551.553 is activated? Or do PDU's which are under construction not count as PDU's?
Now I think that a PDU is still a PDU even if its not active but my partner thinks a PDU that is not active is not actually a PDU yet.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 11:59 pm: Edit
Edward, rule (508.21) has a provision that devestating a planet automatically destroys any inactive PDUs in the process of being setup.
So, since it is possible to destroy inactive PDUs (by devestating, or redevestating the planet), you obviously must do so to satisfy rule (551.553), which really should be rule (511.553) as those subrules are misnumbered.
So basically the attacker has to re-devestate planets with pre-active PDUs (not destroy each individual pre-active PDU) on them to invoke (511.553) and force a withdrawal from the capital.
By Jed King (Lacondog) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 09:15 pm: Edit
I have an F&E question, vary basic so it should be easy =P
i've been thinking about playing F&E, I've never played it or seen the rules, so could i get just a little explination on what F&E is all about? is it totaly economic? are the battles easier than SFB? how complex is it compared to SFB?
I'm just kind of after a little more detailed explination on whats involved in the game than whats writen on the back of the box or the online ordering sight.
also, is there a way to play F&E by E-mail?
Thanks
--Jed
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 09:29 pm: Edit
WEll, F&E 101...
The game is like those large map games of old. Lots of pieces, lots of rules. But, the rules are easy to follow.
The game includes economics for each race, as well as combat and the tactics required are on a Strategic level, rather then the Tactical requirements of SFB.
Combat is fairly simple. You pick the ships that will fight together, add their combat potential, called COMPOT, roll a die and distribute the damage.....is more in there, but that is the gist.
Each turn is broken up into segments. You collect money, build new units, attack, and them prepare your defences for the enemy counter attack.
There are unofficial ways to play F&E over mail, or online, but nothing specifically designed into the game system at this point.
See the "Reports from the Front" in the F&E topic to see ongoing games and feel free to ask folks questions. We like talking to each other about the game. New aspects, new ideas. New folks are always welcome and encouraged to jump in.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:03 pm: Edit
Each game turn is divided into two player turns, usually the coalition (klingons, lyrans, romulans) go first, followed by the alliance (Kzinti, Hydran, Fed, Gorn).
Production Step, count your income, combine with leftover cash from last turn, repair any damaged units (at repair facilites like starbases, battle stations, fleet repair docks), and choose new units to build based on a set building schedule. Units on the schedule can be built as presented, or can be converted to other designs (carrier, scout, etc.), and sometimes other ships can be substituted for what is normally built. Existing ships can also be converted into alternat types (scout to escort, basic hull to carrier, etc.) There is a timescale to the game, each turn is six months, two turns to a year, as the years go by new types of units appear.
Operational Movement, the phasing player (which is normally coalition first) moves his units up to six hexes to attack enemy units and capture enemy territory. Supply range is six hexes from your own network of bases/planets, outside of that range you suffer movement/combat penalties. Supply range can be extended with convoys or tugs, but these units are vulnerable.
Reaction: as the phasing player moves his units (each up to six hexes usually), the non-phasing player (defender) can move his units one (or two if a scout is present) to intercept the approaching ships. Each hex entered by the attacker can be reacted to by the defender if ships are near enough. This can be to attack those ships, or to block them from getting to an important objective.
After this, there will be several spots on the map with units of both players in it, these are "battle hexes". If the non-phasing (defending) player has reserve fleets, they can move up to six hexes to any "battle hex". In order to make ships "reserves", they generally must skip their movement on their own turn.
Combat. All combat hexes are resolved, one by one. All must be resolved before play can continue, no hexes with units of opposing sides outside of combat. Each combat round, each side sets up a battle force from units in that hex, there are rules on command limits, types of units allowed, formation bonus, free scout, etc. Then you add up the attack numbers of your fleet, roll a die to see how much damage you do based on battle intensity (how close to the enemy you try to get). Then each side resolves damage by flipping ships over to the backside (crippled), or by destroying crippled ships, fighters, etc. Normally defender gets to pick losses, but each side can pick one enemy target to specifically destroy by using twice as much damage as normally needed (maulers do this without the double damage penalty).
Retrograde: phasing units that were in combat can again move six hexes, so long as they end up on a friendly base/planet. This allows for defensive arrangement of your attack forces to prepare for the opponents turn.
You get a chance to repair things immediately, away from repair facilities, but at a higher cost than at the beginning of the turn.
Strategic Movement. Ships that did not move earlier can move as many hexes as they want, hitting a base/planet every six hexes. Used to deploy new construction to the front lines, or to redeploy a fleet from one border to another.
Next players turn, and then repeat.
Main scenario is the General War, 18 years of combat for the alpha sector. Also has some tips on running a "free campaign", a sort of non-historical free for all. Other scenarios in other products.
Carrier war expansion adds rules on how to organize carrier groups (carrier + escort + escort) makes the carrier difficult to kill).
Special ops adds fun toys like stasis field ships, tug pods, others.
Marine Assault, ground troops, troop ships, monitors (to protect planets).
Soon the new product Combined Ops will replace Special Ops and Marine assault. Will have all that stuff plus some new stuff.
Advanced Ops has late-war stuff like X-ships, and lots lots more.
The expanded editions are very nice, as you can NEVER have too many counters, and OFTEN have not enough counters, unless you are using one of the electronic gameboards some people have created.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:08 pm: Edit
Wow Nick!
I'll have to copy that off (if you don't mind) for my propoganda campaign in my online group...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:12 pm: Edit
Overall, it is somewhat less complex than SFB (fewer rules overall), but there are WAY MORE CHOICES on what to do each turn. There are lots of ways to play this game, strategies to emply, etc. (just ask a number of people about the balance of any given playtest rule). It takes a good investment of time to play (and a place to setup the board and fleet charts), but is a lot of fun.
By Robert Merkamp (Rdm) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 11:47 pm: Edit
I have questions about the playtest rule for diplomatic ships. I understand they're still playtest rules but just looking for some guidance.
1) The two that are assigned at start are placed in the Home Fleet, so they're not released until the rest of the Home Fleet is right? I ask only because these sort of ships might want to be a bit more flexible in their use.
2) Building or converting a Diplomatic ship absorbs one prime team. Are the two at start considered to have already "absorbed" PT's and if so, do they reduce the total number of Prime Teams the Klingons can deploy?
3) Can some rules (such as 5KD.25) be used by the Klingons on Turn 1?
Thanks,
Rob
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:10 am: Edit
Good questions. I presume you're talking about the Klingons. Remember that these ships are not what conducts peacetime diplomacy but what conducts wartime diplomacy, so the home fleet ships are indeed released only when the home fleet is, symbolizing the "gearing up for war" sort of thing. Prime teams absorbed into diplomatic ships do not count against prime team limits. There's a whole 8-hour class on what the Klingons can and cannot do on turn 1 and Jeff teaches it every few weeks in th is topic.
By Robert Merkamp (Rdm) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 01:09 pm: Edit
Thanks SVC. That answers my questions. I'm doing a solo game and decided to use these (and a few other) playtest rules in to see how they work.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 06:50 pm: Edit |
May - June 2003 Archive
By David Johnson (Djj) on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 07:23 pm: Edit
Nick:
Is there an official list of all known counter errors/typos (not disagreements) and their correct values?
If so, would you list them here?
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 05:48 pm: Edit
Nick/Jeff/SVC
Chris Fant and I have used SVC's added Fighting Retreat rules (from Nov 13, 2002) and we are looking for verification since we lack their final draft.
There is a ruling that Jeff L. (on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:45 pm) made regarding Double FR and we used that to answer our questions. All we need now is verification on how we interpreted the rules.
The situation is this:
(Chris) The Kzinti were attacked at SB 1304. The had a BF pinning out two E4s in 1204. The Kzinti had sent a reserve to 1105 helping the planet there. All Kzn BATS on Kling. border have been destoyed.
In resolving 1304 first we fought a round of combat and the Klingons (Lawrence) retreated. The Kzinti also retreated. Klingons to 1305..Kzinti to 1204 over the BF/2E4s in a FR. The resulting FR battle killed an E4. The other Klingon E4 retreated...the Kzinti retreated as well. E4 to 1205...Kzinti to 1105 in a FR (they could have gone back to the SB).
Using your new rules we discussed the approach battle (to have one or not?). Based on the ruling by Jeff about FR the Kzinti defenders are offered an approach and if they take it fight under the FR penalties (including they must retreat). If they do not accept they can continue to run to their base and fight a normal conditions battle there.
This is how we interpreted things. Is this how it is intended (and will be presented in CL26)? We thought it made sense. Please verify.
Thanks Chris & Lawrence...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 10:17 pm: Edit
As far as I know a "final version" of such fighting retreat additions/clarifications has not yet been created. Everyone has been busy with Combined Ops related stuff. I don't know if it will be in CL#26 or not, but probably a good bet if you bug us enough about it.
I don't have an official list of counter errors, remember that most "counter errors" are declared to be correct and the SIT to be changed to match later, since that is easier to fix than the counter.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 11:43 pm: Edit
David/Nick:
I believe the Hydran NSC counter from the core game is wrong and the SIT is right (I think that the counters from ABCD sheets will be reprinted this fall). There are just a few in AO also: the Lyran SCX & 3DWX, the Orion DWV and a generic LAP come to mind.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 03:16 pm: Edit
Under the Federation reaction rules, if the Federation capital is the second alliance capital to fall can the Federation still build a battleship?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 04:08 pm: Edit
I think the Coalition player would be too happy to notice if you did...
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 10:59 pm: Edit
Well, the Fed's would be eligible but if there is no shipyard....
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 01:47 am: Edit
...well, in the off-map...maybe...
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 02:07 am: Edit
Does the exception to pinning that relates to having a superior command rating relate both to the phasing player and to the reacting player? If a hundred ships with a command rating of nine move into a hex and stop, then two ships with a command rating of ten extended range react into that hex, may one of those two ships later standard range react out of the hex?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 02:35 am: Edit
Is there a rule that prohibits the Tholians from building FRDs? If so, where?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 03:55 pm: Edit
The whole thing of converting 3 Escorts for a 3pt conversion.
Can I do 5 escorts, if I sacrifice a Major 5pt conversion?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 04:32 pm: Edit
Our Pirate Player is trying something new in the Four Horsemen game. He is trying to lease all of his ships that were not bid on to one player, claiming everyone bid 0 on them and he can then choose to lease them to any player he wishes. I say any that were not bid on were null bids and did not have any value to speak of and he cannot lease the ships in this manner. He says "In any case in which the bids for a ship are equivalent, the pirate player may lease the ship to the player of his choice. Since the bids on the seventeen ships were all the same, namely 0, I can lease them to the player of my choice." Using 504.33.
Please let us know which way this is supposed to work.
BTW the player he wants to lease the ships to does not think he is correct and is refusing to use the ones he did not bid on.
By William Hughes (Patchfur3) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 04:54 pm: Edit
Fast ship pinning:
Let's say you have a fast ship that has six fighters on it and it gets reacted to by three small and mostly harmless frigates.
Is the fast ship pinned?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 04:56 pm: Edit
Edward, of course you need a shipyard to produce ships, which would include battleships. Of course, the Fed capital is not listed in rule (318.3), I don't think it counts as one of the "two capitals". You are supposed to react to the fall of two allied capitals, not to the fall of your own capital.
Todd, you seem to be asking two different questions. First, rule (203.55) applies to the MOVING player, (i.e. the player trying to move), which could be either the phasing or non-phasing player depending on what action (op move, reaction, reserve move) is being performed. Second, yes, one of the CR10 ships could still use its extended reaction since CR10-CR9=1 ship able to move.
Chuck, not that I know of.
Scott, Basically, yes. This is explained in CL#25. Each starbase can do three points of conversions, and CEDS out-of-sequence escort conversions use this capacity, so 3 CEDS escort conversions uses the normal conversion capacity of one starbase. Further, the errata in CL#25 says that for purposes of this CEDS rule, the capital starbase is assumed capable of making 5 points of conversions, and any CEDS out-of-sequence escorts converted subtract from that capacity. So, you can for example, do 2 CEDS escort conversions using the capacity of the capital starbase, and that starbase can still do a normal 3 pt conversion on the next production step. It follows then that you could even do 1 CEDS escort conversion (using the capital starbase capacity), and still do a 4 point major conversion (but nothing larger) at the normal time. If you don't use any of the capital starbase's capacity for CEDS, then it can do a normal conversion of any cost (major or minor).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 05:04 pm: Edit
Of course, the Tholians have no FRD counters, and in SFB, the FRD rule says tholians (and Orion, WYN, and Andromedans) do not use them and never had them, so I would have to say they cannot build them in F&E either, even though a specific rule to that effect seems to have been overlooked.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 05:23 pm: Edit
Mike, if no one bidded (i.e. everyone bid 0) then you can't lease ships. The Orions are NOT going to give ships out for free. That's not how it is supposed to work, that is twisting the "spirit" of the rule. Yes, if you follow the strict letter of the rule, it can be interepreted that way, but just as obviously, that is not the rule's intention.
The Orion player is not meant to side with the coalition or alliance (which is what is happening), the Orions are playing to get money anyway they can. This is why the rule says you MUST lease ships to the highest bidder (or any that tie for highest) or NOT AT ALL, you cannot give it to a lower bidder, and (unstated but none the less true) you cannot give ships to someone who bid a big fat zero just because everyone else did too.
This is also why the non-player Orion rules (rule by committee) in Advanced Ops are neat, no need for a neutral third player.
William, Yup. Rule (523.253) says add up all the bits and pieces, and whoever has more ships/equivalents can move some. So, the frigate player adds up his mostly harmless frigates, 1+1+1=3. The fast carrier player adds up his fleet 2 (fast ship counts as 2) + 1 (1 ship equivalent of fighters) = 3. The sides are equal and thus everyone is pinned.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 07:14 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick!
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 10:56 pm: Edit
Nick,
On Craig's question, 203.55 says that if a force is fully pinned, then compare CR and the moving player can move some forces out. If the ship in question here is the LGE (CR9) vs 3xFF (CR5 or whatever), then would the LGE be able to leave behind it's fighters and move on?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 11:41 pm: Edit
Tony, rule (203.53) prohibits a ship leaving fighters/PFs behind during pinning calculations, so no that does not work.
Even though the command rating differences means you could move some ships out (if you had multiple ships), by rule (203.55) you must always leave at least ONE ship behind, and since you cannot leave fighters behind, a single-ship-carrier is just plain stuck.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 11:48 pm: Edit
oops - sorry for missing that. Thanks
By William Hughes (Patchfur3) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 10:15 am: Edit
So if the fast ship with six fighters was reacted to by two frigates, it is still pinned per 203.53?
I think I see this, if you wanted to leave with the carrier, you can't count it's pin equivalent in fighters.
Now, the fast ship thing allows you to move past a single ship, yes? 203.55 allows a fast ship to depart, if it is the only ship, I think...
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 10:45 am: Edit
Nick - I can see a benefit to having the Orion player wanting to loan out his services to the sides who bid 0. The orion should not be deciding to help one side or another, but if he has a fleet that he wants to sell, and no one is willing to pay him, he might, as a business move, loan his ships to one side to convince the other side how useful his ships are. It is sort of like a drug dealer giving out free samples, and we know how much the Orions like coke! ;)
This does not mean I think the Orion should be able to do that, but I think we should bump this question up to discover if the intent of the rule is to prevent this from happening, or just a strange loophole.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 10:49 am: Edit
Actually William, I think that 1 FF would pin the LGE. The fighters can't be left behind to counter pin, so the LGE has to stay.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 04:33 pm: Edit
Nick,
An explination on what our Orion player is doing with the leasing of ships for a null bid was requested by him. He has tried to get a username for this board several times without sucess. I agreed, in the spirit of letting you hear both sides, to post his explination.
Quote from Orion Player:
Explanation:
The Orions are attempting to motivate bribes by both sides (especially the coalition who have not been paying them). One way to do this is to accept bribes not to lease to certain players. But how does one encourage a bribe not to lease ships? By leasing ships to that player in a manner that makes a significant enough contribution to his fighting strength to compel future bribes. In our game Turn 5, no coalition nor alliance bribes were offered, and only one bid greater than 0 came in from the Kzinti player. I, the Orion player, decided to retaliate by leasing 17 Orion ships to the Kzinti player (on the grounds that equivalent bribes permit this) this turn (and maybe to another player another turn) in order to make enough of a difference to attract bribes in the future. Hence, the motive here was not to ally with one side over the other, and it was entirely motivated by profit (those 17 ships cannot raid provinces without being destroyed this turn, so unless leased they will sit and do nothing; my other ships are raiding wherever possible). Thus, my move is in keeping with both the spirit and letter of the Orion rules.
End Quote from Orion player
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 05:27 pm: Edit
I don't think the Orion player can give ships to a side if he has not gotten any money at all.....
THat is very non-Orion of him
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 11:50 pm: Edit
I am still sure the intention is that you can only lease ships to paying customers, and if nobody bid on a ship, then it goes unused that turn.
But I will pass the question on to Jeff and see what his opinion is.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 08:25 am: Edit
Considering that the only way for an Orion to "win" is to gather wealth, and part of that wealth is the attack factors of Orion ships, I completely agree with Nick.
0 EP "leases" definitely are incorrect.
The "leasing" player could knock the Orion right out of the game by sending 100% Orion forces into combat, crippling every ship.
By Dave Fowler (Davefowler) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 01:35 pm: Edit
I solved the orion problem quite easily. Any turn that no one wanted my service i'd pick one race and raid the entire lines behind their advancing force... after a couple of times people got the idea not to ignore the ol orions :-)
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 02:50 pm: Edit
Dave,
There is a rule that you have to raid every race with one ship, or have accepted a bribe not to raid, before you send another ship into a race's territory.
Saying that, what happens when the Kzinti or Hydrans are fully off map? How does the pirate raid their territory to be able to let him raid another hex in a race who has on map territory? Does the Pirate player ignore races who no longer have territory on map?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 05:07 pm: Edit
Right, by (504.341) pirates must be fairly distributed among each race's current territory (including captured territory). Each race must have one pirate raid (or paid a bribe to not be raided), before a second, third, fourth pirate ship is deployed. You cannot simply send all the pirate raiders to Fed space without sending equal numbers to the other races (assuming there are other races that did not bribe the orions to stay away).
Mike, read the last part of rule (504.341), which says if a pirate ship cannot be placed in a given race's terrotory because of the various limits (inlcuding the three hex rule and the prohibition of off map deployment), that race is excused from the fair distribution clause.
So as an example, say the hydrans and kzintis are off map. You place a pirate in lyran space, one in fed space, (say klingons paid a bribe so no pirates can go there), one in gorn space, one in rom space. Now normally you must place one in Kzin and Hydran space before doing a second ship in Fed, Lyran, etc space. But, since it is impossible to place a pirate in Kzin or Hydran space since Orions cannot raid off map, the Kzintis and Hydrans are excused from the fair distribution rule. So since Kzintis and Hydrans don't count, you can now place a second ship in Lyran, Fed, Gorn, Rom space. Each race must have two ships before any of them get a third, and each must have three before any race gets a fourth, etc. Now say you have an industrious pirate with many ships, eventually it will be impossible to place a ship, say in Lyran space, due to the 3 hex apart requirement, and presence of Lyran ships, etc. Once that happens, the Lyrans are excused, and the remaining Pirates from that point must only be fairly distributed among Fed, Rom, and Gorn space. See?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 05:30 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick! I didn't have a rule book with me at work and was working from memory.
By Peter Riewe (Riewe) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 08:20 pm: Edit
Nick,
Does a single regular ship (or ship equivalent) pin a single fast ship?
With reference to rule 203.54, I would assume no, since a single crippled ship doesn't pin a single regular ship. Is it fair to interpret 203.54 in this way, since it was written before the advent of fast ships?
This question has direct relevance to the validity of a tac note I just posted.
Thanks,
Peter
By David Johnson (Djj) on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 01:00 am: Edit
For that matter, do three crippled ships pin one fast ship?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 09:18 am: Edit
In the draft AO rules, X-Ships had a pin rule that said (from memory) they weren't pinned until completely pinned (ie, until 2 SEs were present to oppose them). At that time, Fast Ships did NOT share that rule.
However, when the final rules came out, that section has been removed from the X-Ship pin rules. So, all these questions above apply to X-Ships as well.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 01:05 pm: Edit
Nick:
A few questions on Tholian PWC (707.1):
1. On turn 10+, do the Tholians continue to receive "One PC per turn plus" their further "one ship of any type" peacetime production?
2. If peacetime production continues into the X-ship era can they claim X-Ships as "one ship of any type"?
3. Are Tholians allowed to use substitutions for PWC ships? IOW in Y169S the Tholians can construct a DN; can they substitute a DD & CW per (707.2)(after all it is "construction" and other lines in (707.2) specifically say "once per year in wartime" meaning those cannot be done during peacetime).
4. If after the Neo-Tholians arrive can "one ship of any type" include construction of Archeo-based webcaster ships: CAW, DHW?
By Dave Fowler (Davefowler) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 04:08 pm: Edit
Man you guys are no fun, I'm talking about raiding pre F2k. Oh well it used to be fun playing the orions :-)
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 02:25 pm: Edit
Sorry if this is an old Q, but
Reading the EW rules (313) seems to say that the scout modifer is subtraced from the die roll, minimum 1. (313.21)
Aka if you have net EW of 4 and your opponent rolls a 1 there is no effect.
The battle board, (I just received with CO) says something different.
Aka EW can modify a roll to effectivly below 1.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 05:21 pm: Edit
You go down to the next row.....
So, if you are at BIR 4, and roll a 1 with a -1 shift from EW, you go to 1 at BIR 3.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 05:36 pm: Edit
Bret,
The rule Chris is referring to is (308.62).
"if a negative die roll shift reduced a die roll below 1, simply take the extra shifts as intensity reductions"
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 05:57 pm: Edit
Whoops.......sorry bout that.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 11:42 am: Edit
Sorry for the delay, I should get to questions tonight after work.
Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 04:47 pm: Edit
RE: Fast ship pinning. I believe that rule (523.253) answers this. It says that you add up all the pinning points, then the person with more can move a number of ships equal to the difference, counting X/fast ships as two.
So, if you had one fast ship and one enemy non-fast ship, add up the points, fast force has two points, non-fast force has one point, fast force can move one ship, but the fast ship counts as two, so it cannot be moved since you can only move one ship.
This is the same as the first paragraph of (203.5), you can only move units out of a hex containing enemy units if you leave a number of units behind equal to the enemy force. I believe this also means that a single crippled ship would pin a non-crippled ship, if they were the only forces present. The rule (203.54) says two crippled = 1 non-crippled, but I think this is just illustrating that a crippled ship is considered 1/2 a ship. Rule (203.54) is silent on the matter of 1 ship vs 1 crippled ship, while the text in (203.5) and in advanced ops both imply that equal (or greater) numbers to the enemy force must be left behind.
Chuck,
1) I believe the wartime production replaces (not augments) the peacetime PC+any ship production schedule. This is how every other OB list works, when a new schedule (for a given date) is listed, it replaces the previous one.
2) See 1).
3) Well, for one thing, the Tholian CW has an availability date of Y179, so you can't sub it before then. (Remember, the CW hullform was unable to be built before the arrival of the NeoTholians according to SFB background, and Neo Tholians arrive Y178.) Also, rule (431.42) prohibits any changes to PWC except for cancelling ships to rais money, no PWC subs, conversions, accelerated production, or overbuilds.
4) See 1).
RE: EW die roll shift, there does seem to be a bit of a contradiction. Rule (313.21) says that the die roll cannot be modified below 1 by EW, while rule (308.62) says it can be by various factors, and specifically mentions scouts (implying EW) as a factor that can contribute to this. Also, the new battle board implies that EW can modify the die roll in this way. I would say that since we have two on one, that (308.62) and the new battle board constitute the operative rule and die rolls can be modified below 1 with EW shifts. (At least, that's how I always played.)
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 05:51 pm: Edit
Nick:
I must have not phrased the Tholian PWC questions properly -- reread my questions and assume the Tholians are at peacetime beyond turns 10+ (IOW if there is a prolonged peace will these PWC schedules continue as stated in the questions?)
1. On turn 10+, do the Tholians continue to receive "One PC per turn plus" their further "one ship of any type" peacetime production? (Assume a prolonged peace.)
2. If peacetime production continues into the X-ship era can they claim X-Ships as "one ship of any type"? (Assume a prolonged peace.)
3. (Answered -- thanks.)
4. If after the Neo-Tholians arrive can "one ship of any type" include construction of Archeo-based webcaster ships: CAW, DHW? (Assume a prolonged peace.)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 07:46 pm: Edit
Nick, a question on your inturpretation of the pinning question 2 up.
You say that a crippled ship will pin an uncrippled ship.
Will a single fighter pin a ship, as it is part of a ship equivilant? 2 fighters? By your answer above, 3 fighters would pin a ship as 3 fighters is a half SE.
Is that what we are going for?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 11:39 pm: Edit
Nick,
How are fighters on a carrier handled in single ship combat? Do they apply to both the attack and defense factors in calculating 310.2?
We have a situation where the Klingon player lent a CVT, no escorts, to the Lyrans on the Web based game and the Lyrans retrograded away leaving the CVT in the hex in a Lyran Fleet. The Klingon player did not retrograde the ship since he did not see it and it is being attacked by a DNL in a raid in the following Alliance turn. The Kzinti says rule 310.2 gives him a +1. DNL attack of 11, CVT defense of 8. The Klingon player says what Captain in his right mind would not use his fighters in defense of this type of attack and should be able to add the 5 fighters to his defense of 8 for a total of 13.
Please advise as to what the correct procedure is. Thank you!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 10:00 am: Edit
Chris, rule (205.71) says that six fighter factors are considered a ship, six PFs a ship for purposes of pinning, and rule (501.9) says 3-5 fighter factors are a half-ship (crippled ship) while six fighter factors are a ship, for pinning purposes. (502.46) says that 3-5 PFs are a half ship, while 6 PFs are one ship for pinning. So if you only had one or two fighter factors, or one or two PFs, they would not count at all for pinning.
Chuck, sorry, I missed your meaning.
1) Yes, this would make sense.
2) This doesn't happen, as rule (604.151) puts the Tholians at war prior to X-ship introduction even if they haven't been attacked yet. If you run an alternate variant where the Tholians do not go to war, then it is up to your group I suppose. Perhaps one X-ship per year would be reasonable for peacetime production? You could do one per turn if your group wanted though.
4) Again, they should have gone to war via (604.151) prior to neo-tholian arrival (which is where they got webcasters from). If you run a variant of this, then it is up to you. The rule allows one webcaster ship per turn, but this is assuming wartime status, so again maybe one per year is reasonable for peacetime. Again, up to your group since you are essentially running a special variant.
Remember that a lot of the late-war production rules assume you are at war (since in the standard game everyone is at war by that point). No race really has a late-war peacetime production schedule, latewar schedules assume the race is at war. For example, if the Feds never went to war (or the Klingons never went to war) in some variant game, would they really build all those war cruisers on the production schedule?
Mike, yes, you add defense factors as well as attack factors. The rule in advanced ops says add the attack factors together and doesn't mention defense factors, but obviously you must add the defense together as well or the rule doesn't work. If you had several (2-3) ships you would have to add both attack and defense to make the (310.0) modifiers come out right, so of course you would add fighters/PFs attack and defense as well.
So it would be DNL 11 attack vs CVT 13 defense, no modifier, and CVT 12 attack vs DNL 11 defense, no modifier.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 06:57 pm: Edit
Nick, got a curiosity question for ya.
Rule (431.36) says that Overproduction can be used during the period when no functioning shipyard exists.
Now, my question is: Where do these overproduced ships enter play?
Do they have to start at the new capital, even though there is nothing there to build them really? Do they start at the races starbases evenly dispersed?
Probably not a huge deal, but it piqued my curiosity.
Thanks.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 07:05 pm: Edit
New capital. The rules provide that all new production goes there unless specifically excepted.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 07:36 pm: Edit
Danke SVC.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 08:03 pm: Edit
nvr mind
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:16 pm: Edit
I did come up with an answer to the "converted carrier does/doesn't count against carrier limit" and sent it to the staff for comment. Should have it in CL26.
By Jeffrey Alan Hester (Phanatik) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 06:42 am: Edit
601.2 Turn 3 states that the Klingon Home Fleet is released if the Hydrans enter "klingon territory." Does "klingon territory" include the neutral zone hexes (previously captured by the Klingon) along the LDR/Lyran border or only the original national borders?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 05:03 pm: Edit
Those hexes would count like any other NZ hexes along the klingon border, they are no different.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 07:03 pm: Edit
Nick,
To follow up on your answer to Phanatik, do the NZ hexes of a race count towards releasing fleets that are released if race "X" enters race "Y"'s territory?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 08:33 pm: Edit
I need a clarification on Military Raids.
the situation is this
Klingons are stting up 2 mobile bases over 1202, there are no other ships in that hex. A Kizinti DNL with prime team raids that hex and the Kilingons react out a D7C.
If the Klingons decline the reaction battle, and the Kzinti's opt to alternate attack one of the tugs, des it have to the other tug and the D7C as well?
My opponent is claiming that snce rule 314.28 says to see rule 314.253-4 that these rules apply and I say that this is only valid for the target types mentioned (PDFs for 314.253 and FRDs, LTFs, Convoys and criples for 314.254).
so which is correct?
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 05:50 am: Edit
When a ship is pinned does it expend the rest of its movement points in the hex it is in or do they just disappear. The reason I ask is it could be important for reaction. Example:
Klingon fleet at 1403, Zin at 1401, Klingon E4 holding 1502. Zin move out to 1502. Klinks react to 1503, Zin leave a ship and move back to 1401.
Way I understand it.....If the Kzinti ship that is left to adhere to pinning requirements has to expend its movement points then the Klinks can react in, if not then they can't.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 11:18 am: Edit
James, the klingons can react again in your example. Rule (205.33) says that after extended reaction, the reaction force can still react again to the original ship(s) even if the ship(s) stopped moving. It doesn't matter if it stopped due to player choice, or to pinning.
Tim, I am going to ask Jeff and Steve about this one. The thing is, a tug setting up a mobile base would almost certainly be near any other bases, or PDUs in the hex, and if you chose to do single ship combat with the tug you should first have to fight your way past real bases/PDUs. In other words I think that ERRATA LINE ITEM: "tug setting up mobile base" should be added to the list in (314.254). Tug as supply point should theoretically be there as well, but is not really needed since a supply tug would never be set up in the hex of a planet/base.
Now, the tricky part, is in your example this isn't exactly the case, you have no planet, and no pre-existing base. However, the two tugs setting up bases are almost certainly at the same location (they do have a location since they trigger approach battles, and must be declared if they are at the same location or not when they start setting up). Assuming they are at the same location would imply that if you choose to attack one with single combat, you first have to fight a normal combat round against both of them. Now, they are not real bases yet, so maybe this part (combined fight before the single combat) doesn't apply?
Now, the curious thing is that bases themselves are not mentioned in (314.253) or (314.254) as requiring a combined fight. If you want to single combat the base, shouldn't you have to fight all bases/PDUs/Monitors at the same location? Same goes for monitors? If so, it should also apply for tugs setting up bases/performing upgrades as well.
The one certain thing though, is that the D7C is out of it at this point, rules (314.253) and (354.254) only force you to fight static things like PDUs/Bases/Monitors, etc., they never force you to fight ships. If the D7C declined to fight you for the reaction battle, then you cannot be forced back into combat with it.
So my conclusion is that perhaps rule (314.253) needs the following added after PDU: bases, monitors, tugs setting up mobile bases, tugs upgrading bases. I will send this to Jeff/Steve though, and see what they think. If bases were intentionally left off, then that probably goes for tugs as well.
Mike, I believe not in this specific case, since the scenario rule says the klingon home fleet is released if Hydrans enter Klingon territory, and the NZ hexes are not Klingon territory. It is talking about ORIGINAL kligon territory, so captured hexes/provinces do not count to release the home fleet. In general, entering nz hexes triggers war with a given race, which may or may not release fleets, depends on specific scenario rules.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 11:37 am: Edit
Thanks Nick
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 12:39 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick, as additional info, the D7C was going to decline and declare himself to with the Base ( rule 314.251)
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 04:11 pm: Edit
Can an Admiral be used in a battle force to gain an extra command slot if the only CR 9 ship in a Klingon fleet is a CVT? By CVT, I mean on of the at-start hard welded CVT, not an actual carrier tug. Could the Admiral jump onto a CR 8 ship, like a D7, that is commanded by a CVT and get the extra slot? Thanks!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 06:36 pm: Edit
The admiral adds a ship to the fleet above the command rating of the flagship, regardless of whether or not the admiral is on the flagship or not (316.21). It doesn't matter what the flagship is, the admiral always adds another ship.
Of course, by (316.144) the Admiral must move to the ship with highest command rating, so he would have to move to the CR9 CVT from the CR8 D7 during battleforce selection.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 06:41 pm: Edit
Actually, that is one of the bonuses of the Klingon CVT over a TG+2VP2's.
It can carry an Admiral, since it is no longer classified as a "Tug" but a Carrier.
It's notes describe it as a "Medium Carrier"
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 10:11 am: Edit
"Tug as supply point should theoretically be there as well, but is not really needed since a supply tug would never be set up in the hex of a planet/base."
What about a Lyran supply tug at a Klingon planet/base?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 04:01 am: Edit
yup, that was my first thought on that as well.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 08:16 am: Edit
That's true.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 08:55 am: Edit
This thing about slow units/bases being colocated during raids and single ship raid combat is being fixed and will be in CL#26. Steve has written up the additions/clarifications to the rule. I won't post it here until it has been finalized, but I imagine either Steve or I will post it when it is.
And the thing about supply tugs at allied bases/planets was already caught by Steve as well.
This errata will define more clearly which co-located units can be attacked by raid single combat, and what all gets to fight the raider first before it gets to get to do so.
There are also some other errata/clarifictions that are going to be in CL#26 as well. (Of course!)
Nick
By Robert Merkamp (Rdm) on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 11:24 am: Edit
A few more questions on the Diplomatic Ships rule from CL 22. Section 5KD.25 allows the Klingons to try and persuade neutral planets adjacent to Klingon planets to join with the empire. The rules state that if successful, the planet immediately becomes a planet of the Klingon empire.
Questions/Clarifications:
1. If successful, does that planet qualify to become a supply/retrogade/startegic movement point that same turn?
2. When does the Klingon player start drawing EP's (I'm guessing the following turn)?
3. Where in the sequence of play does the Klingon player make their rolls?
Thanks,
Rob
By Eric Stork (Merchant) on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 02:06 pm: Edit
Question, I start a turn with a Klingon TGB in the capital and have assigned it Mission N carrying troop pods. Then I get to the point in my turn where I perform conversions and would like to convert the TGB to a TGA. Does the conversion remove the troop pods entirely changing the tug's mission to M or does the converted TGA get the pods back staying in Mission N?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 03:13 pm: Edit
Nick,
Will a new F&E Errata page be uploaded soon that removes all the things that where covered (i.e. corrected/fixed/updated) in CO and in AO? Just curious.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 03:38 pm: Edit
When Nick does a new master errata file, he should move those items corrected in CO (or AO) into a separate part of the document for those without these new products.
By Eric Stork (Merchant) on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 06:42 pm: Edit
Question 2 just to understand Retreat Priority correctly (been awhile).
A Klingon force of 7 ships fights a battle in 2010, wins then retreats. When choosing Retreat Priority, it looks like I can choose between 1910 (neutral minor planet) and 1911. By (302.73), I get to (302.732) that looks like it allows me to choose 1910 and fight again if I wish (not a fighting retreat). Is this correct?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 07:00 am: Edit
Eric,
At that point, you are correct. However, when you get to (302.734), 1910 would be excluded, since 1911 is open. You could then only go to 1910 via fighting retreat, UNLESS 1911 contained enemy units, which would cause (302.734) to be ignored, as any priority which eliminates all remaining hexes is ignored. All retreat priorities must be examined in order before the allowable retreat hexes are finally determined, with the proviso that (302.731) is kind of a trump, in addition to being an exclusion.
Joe
PS - please note that my answer holds NO official weight whatsoever. I just noticed that no on had the opportunity to answer, and I knew the answer. If I overstepped any bounds by responding before Nick, then I apologize in advance. I'm just trying to be helpful since I've found the retreat rule to be the least well understood in the basic ruleset.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 10:20 am: Edit
I haven't answered questions because unlike most people, I was working every day over the holiday weekend. I should get these answered sometime tonight.
Nick
By Robert Merkamp (Rdm) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 12:05 pm: Edit
Quick question on the J2 ships. Where does the Hydran GRV set up, it mentions that one is included but no hint as to which fleet. I need this (as well as info on my diplomatic ships questions above) for a game I'm playing.
Oops, just read your post Nick. No hurry, I can wait a bit since my game is going slow. Too bad about working over the holidays, hopefully you get some time to yourself soon.
Thanks,
Rob
PS Good to see you on the boards again Joe.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 01:14 pm: Edit
GRV home fleet (pilot training).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 09:30 pm: Edit
Robert, Really, all the questions hinge on #3. Probably simplest to say that you make the die roll (and thus must be in that hex) at the start of the turn. If successful, the planet would be "incorporated" at that point. Perhaps use the rules for captured planets to determine when you get EPs/strat moves, etc... Another option would be to allow the die roll whenever the ship with that assigned mission enters the planets hex (thus could be done during op move for example). Then if successful, simply follow the rules for captured planets to determine when you get strat move ability/EPs, etc. You may want to write this up as a playtest report and send it in.
Eric, the tug would retain whatever mission you assigned it earlier.
On the retreat, Joe is correct. If there are no enemy units in 1911 and enemy(neutral) units in 1910, then priority 4 forces you to go to 1911. In this case you can ignore priority 4 and use fighting retreat at 1910, (but as you will see in the next Captain's Log, the one round of fighting retreat in a hex containing an enemy base/planet is fought as an approach battle, so you wouldn't get to attack the PDUs, but would just retreat again).
On the other hand, if there are enemy (or neutral) units in both 1910 and 1911, then priority 4 is ignored before getting (or having) to choose fighting retreat, and you could retreat (normally) to either hex assuming you were not outnumbered, as in that case the hex would be eliminated under priority 2.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 10:44 pm: Edit
Nick, just to add.
If the Klingons have already captured hex 1911, then (302.731) would apply, and you can always retreat into a neutral hex, 1910.
Of course, since you can only capture neutral hexes in Op Movement, the planet would be captured during retreat but not the hex.
By Mario M. Silva (Mariosilva) on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 01:28 pm: Edit
Nick,I have a question about the Formation Bonus(308.7)used on one crippled ship in a group of cripples in a Pursuit Battle(307.4). In a group of 2 or more cripples (in a pursuit battle)does the Form Bonus rule(308.7)exclude one crippled ship from being grouped together for DirDam purposes? Or(and this is my understanding of the rules)may the pursuer group together one or more cripples AND THEN the pursuee may use the Form bonus to try to protect a key crippled ship? The form bonus cripple would still be considered grouped together with the other cripples for DirDam(mauler)purposes. This just makes it more expensive to kill the entire crippled group but does not exclude any one crippled ship from the group. Is this the right understanding? My opponent thinks that since the Form Bonus rule(308.71) states that ONE ship can be selected and put in the Form Box AND that Pursuit Battle rule(307.4) does not SPECIFICALLY state inclusion/exclusion of said ship(just that the Form Bonus CAN be used) that the crippled Form Bonus ship should be excluded from the crippled group. We have a friendly,but insistent,debate about this. I told my friend he is being a "rules lawyer" and bet him six of our favorite beverages that he was wrong. Could you please settle this for us? Thank you for your time in advance.
By Mario M. Silva (Mariosilva) on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 01:31 pm: Edit
Nick, sorry for the lack of paragraphs in the above post. It must make for some dense reading. Again, sorry for the inconveniance! Mario S.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 03:28 pm: Edit
A ship in form bonus position could be one of several "grouped" for directed damage in a pursuit battle. Note this is not a group on any sense of the word for purposes of other rules.
The actual sequence is that when the pursued battle force is created, a ship (which can be a crippled ship) can be put in the formation bonus slot.
Then in combat, the pursuer can select a number of crippled ships (which may or may not include the one in the form bonus slot) as a single target for directed damage. The damage required to destroy the form bonus ship is calculated at 3-1 (or reduced mauler effect) while the damage required to destroy the other ships are calculated at 2-1.
A mauler applies at full effect for the normal ships, but at 50% on the formation bonus ship (308.45).
The only time you would really have to calculate split mauler pts in a pursuit battle is if there were a situation with not enough pts (to "use up" the mauler) in the normal ships. Say you have a crippled CA and DN, and some uncrippled ships. The crippled DN is in form bonus. If the pursuer wants to destroy both crippled ships with directed damage in pursuit, and has a 10 pt mauler: The CA (crippled defense 4) takes 4 mauler pts (requiring 4 damage) to destroy, leaving 6 mauler pts (3 effective after formation discount) to apply to the DN. The DN has a crippled defense rating of 6, so the 3 effective mauler damage reduces that to 3, requiring (at 3-1) 9 damage. So the total required damage to finish off the two ships in one go is 4+3+9=16 pts.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 03:47 pm: Edit
Of course, you could, instead, apply the mauler pts first to the form bonus DN. So 10 mauler pts (5 effective) uses 5 damage to reduce the DN (6 defense) to 1. This 1 pt requires 3 to finish off the DN. Then 8 pts (4 defense at 2-1) to kill the CA. So the total is 5+3+8, or 16. Hmm it worked out the same, what do you know.
On the gripping hand, if you did say, 3 mauler pts on the CA (defense 4), then 2 more damage (at 2-1) to finish off the CA, then 7 mauler (4 effective) on the DN (defense 6), then 6 (at 3-1) to finish off the last 2 DN defense. 3+2+4+6=15 required. Seems like a loophole...
Probably need to rule that the mauler must be applied as much as possible to either the formation bonus ship or non-form bonus ships before using mauler points on the other category, to avoid the sillyness of saving a point due to the rounding effect of (308.45).
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 10:14 pm: Edit
Nah, sounds like a tacnote...rather than a loophole.
By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Sunday, June 01, 2003 - 02:27 am: Edit
Here is a question on base damage. Three ships attack a Bats, which is all alone. They do 7 damage. They do not use directed damage. Does the BAts have to be crippled or does it ignore the damage based on the rule that a base can't be crippled if it would produce minus points? What happens to the six points of damage if they can't be used to cripple the base?
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Sunday, June 01, 2003 - 04:19 am: Edit
Can the Klingons Sub in 2 MD5's a turn or do they have to sub 1 and convert the second?
By Mario M. Silva (Mariosilva) on Sunday, June 01, 2003 - 11:27 am: Edit
Nick, thank you for your quick response with examples. Your second post has given me even more pause to think about damage allocation in pursuit. BTW, I am six "cold ones" richer and my opponent is two PALs poorer. I don't want to sound like I am gloating, but my opponent has played the Hydrans(Did someone say "BLEEDING ULCER"?)extremely well. I'm glad to get what I did. Mario S.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, June 01, 2003 - 02:51 pm: Edit
Hugh, the BATS will take two SIDS (302.615), each of which resolve 4 points of damage.
By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 02:14 am: Edit
Ok so SIDS becomes mandatory at that point and must use the voluntary SIDS resolution points as the attacker is not using directed damage. Thanks Jeff.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 08:47 am: Edit
Edward, according to Advanced Ops, the Klingons can sub two MD5s a turn. You can only build two maulers a turn max, by any means, so if you sub two MD5s, then you don't get a D6M that turn.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 01:21 pm: Edit
According to the rules you can only make 1 CVA per year. However it seems that putting SPB modules on a modular DN for the Romulans is not "making a CVA" it does say it is escorted like a heavy carrier. So I want an official ruling on the modular DN thing here please.
Is a modular DN that recieves a SPB modules considered your only CVA for that year? and if so and you take the modules off could they be transfered to another modular DN w/o counting as a new CVA?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 07:27 am: Edit
I'm confused about the JGP-COG rule. How does it work?
1) I pay 10EPs for the HDW-COG, slap it on my JGP, and only ever get to use 3 of the fighter factors. The other 2 are lost until I mount the HDW-COG on a proper HDW.
2) I pay 6EPs for the HDW-COG, which is a "special" JGP-only version, as it only has 3 fighter factors. (I don't think this is right).
3) The JGP-HDW-COG operates 3 fighter factors, but still holds the other 2 in the manner an FCR does. This would cost 10EPs, and seems to be implied by the text in the AO ruling, but certainly not by the JGP-COG counter in CO.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 03:03 pm: Edit
After economic exaustion sets in, does the salvage gained for dead ships also get reduced by the same amount, or is it processed after reducing the base income?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 03:56 pm: Edit
I think the COG is till a COG, no matter what it is mounted on, so it would still be 10 EP or 5xFree Fighters. Right?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 04:05 pm: Edit
Not to step on NickB's toes....
(525.243) Carrier (V) missions special rule. JGPs operating in the carrier mode use a standard HDW-COG but have fewer fighters than HDWs (three fighters from the COG; there is no hybrid fighters on a JGP; the "missing" fighter factors are simply ignored until needed as replacements; there is no reduced cost).
That pretty much sums it up.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 06:19 pm: Edit
This question is largely directed to SVC, since it is a question of intention, and not wording. I know that the following rule SAYS, but I want to make sure the meaning connoted is what the designer's intention is, and only he can answer that.
(312.271) ... Unfrozen ships of a carrier group with frozen escorts cannot be targeted by Directed Damage because of the limits on the number of attacks and which escort can be attacked. (any ship of a friendly carrier group can be defensively frozen, but the resulting group is treated as above, i.e., as if the ship was not part of the group)
The last line states that the frozen ship is no longer part of the group, and makes reference to the line before it, equating both hostile and friendly freezing of an escort.
Now, clearly, in the first instance, the escort is still being considered as part of the group, because otherwise, one could forego attacking any of the frozen ships and use the one DirDam attack to go after the remaining escorts or the group, and this is expressly precluded. In this case, it makes me ask then if the group as a whole INCLUDING the frozen escort can or cannot be attacked. If I don't freeze a ship, I can normally attack a whole group by DirDam; it would seem unusual if I could not then attack the whole group just because one escort is frozen (if the escort is still included).
Now, it APPEARS that the intent was to keep stasis from opening up a really easy way to pop a carrier group (by freezing the small escort out of a group, then burning what's left), but it does seem at least that you should be able to freeze the small escort and attack the whole group. Of course, this would preclude attacking any other frozen ship.
If my interpretation or perception of intent are incorrect, please correct and clarify.
Joe
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 06:23 pm: Edit
I might look at that after Origins. Nick would have to prepare a case file.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 06:30 pm: Edit
SVC,
Thanks
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 06:51 pm: Edit
Maybe I can help with this one? I asked the same question a ways back...in fact it was an April 14, 2001. Yes, I saved the reply. The question was bounced over to Jeff who answered:
312.271 – Can an entire carrier group still be directed on (using 308.1B) even if one or more of its escorts have been placed in stasis?
(312.212) All frozen ships can be targeted as part of the one allowed directed damage attack. Escorts lose their Directed Damage benefit.
(312.271) “the resulting group is treated as if the ship was not part of the group”
The frozen escort OR the remainder of the group can be targeted, but not both. For example, the MEC of a Kzinti CV group (CV+MEC+EFF) is frozen. The CV+EFF could be targeted as a group (308.1B) OR the frozen MEC could be targeted.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 07:27 pm: Edit
Ok, so did that get it? I need to be working on R10.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 08:42 pm: Edit
SVC,
The wording of the rule is different now that in SO. The answer may be different now, unless you intent has not changed from the original SO rule (and given how much the SFG rules have changed, I would not dare to bet either way on it).
I understand that you are busy now. If you can look at it after Origins, that's cool.
It is probable that Jeff was involved with CO, and may have notes on the subject.
Joe
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 11:17 pm: Edit
Joe,
From Combined Ops:
(312.271) "Unfrozen ships of a carrier group with frozen escorts cannot be targeted by Directed Damage in addition to the frozen ships because of the limits on the number of attacks and which escort may be attacked." The words in bold were added in CO.
The answer that John Colacito quoted remains the same. The additional verbage was added to make that point clear.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 10:09 am: Edit
Edward, I need to ask Steve Cole about the carrier thing. He made a ruling recently about how carrier conversions count against carrier production, and I have to ask how it applies to Rom modular conversions in order to answer your question.
David, I believe that your #3 is the correct way. The COG you build for a jagdpanther costs the full amount, and has all the fighters (for example if you later switch it to a real HDW it is just like any other COG), but the Jagdpanther can only use 3 fighter factors at a time in combat. The remaining fighter factors can be used as replacements.
Robert, salvage is always salvage, it is never reduced like your main economic income.
Scott, OUCH, MY TOES!!!
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 10:16 am: Edit
Joe: Jeff has your answer and I'm happy with it.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 10:34 am: Edit
SVC,
Thanks.
Nick,
One point: Romulan modular conversions are allowed in addtion to the normal conversion allowed at a starbase. However, these are done during the OpMove phase.
Joe
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 10:54 am: Edit
Yes, I know, but it also depends on other things, on whether the modules are built as part of the conversion, or are just brought out of storage (were built on a previous turn under a previous turn's carrier limits), does this count against carrier production since it already counted on a previous turn, etc... There is a detail I need to check with SVC on this one...
If you build the B modules on a Sparrowhawk this is medium carrier production. If you build B modules on a DN, this is CVA production (advanced ops). If you build B modules on sparrowhawk (medium carrier for that turn), then on a later turn, move them to a DN, is this new carrier production for that turn (the modules already counted on a previous turn), and if so what type?
I have sent a file to SVC about this to see what his intention was in light of some of one of the new Q&A entries to be in CL#26 about carrier conversion/production.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 02:03 pm: Edit
Ok let me get this straight, if a SFG freezes 2 escorts from an carrier group the Klingons can just blow up the carrier? (yes I know it has to be from the random part of the chart, but its possible) That means the alliance may have no option but to overstack every carrier group, even an over stacked carrier group might be vulnerable.
By Todd Lovas (Qwerty) on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 04:55 pm: Edit
Nick
Can I substitute for a substituted ship.
Case in point. Production notes (704.3) state I can substitute a SUP for a NH in spring turn.
Allowable Substitutions (704.4) states I can substitute a SUB for an SUP.
Can I build the SUB via that route of substitution?
Thanks
Todd
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 08:18 pm: Edit
Edward, I believe so.
Todd, yup.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 12:40 pm: Edit
Nick
Can the Feds support Kzinti ships in their space as homeless turns 7-9? If yes, then is there any restriction on the actions of those ships (since they are technically not allowed to be in the Federation - only the Kzinti expeditionary fleet is allowed)? Thanks.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 01:17 pm: Edit
They would be impounded if they entered Fed space prior to turn 7 would they not?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 03:38 pm: Edit
I can see nothing preventing the Feds from adopting homeless Kzinti ships turns 7-9, but said ships cannot enter Fed space. So if you had Kzintis ships cut off from Kzinti supply, but in range of Fed supply, the Feds could theoretically adopt them to keep them in supply (and presumably fighting the Klingons), but those ships still cannot enter Fed space (unless they become Expeditionary ships).
The homeless rules simply require that the ships be cut off from home supply, and in range of allied supply. They do not have to be in the allies territory, and in this case they are still prohibited from doing so by the scenario rule.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 04:03 pm: Edit
What if the ships had been expeditionary on a previous turn (this is the case I'm interested in)?
Could the Kzinti send 12 ships into the Federation (out of Kzinti supply) as an expeditionary fleet on turn 7, then declare the origional 12 homeless and send a different 12 into the Federation as an expeditionary fleet on turn 8, while the origional 12 remain within the Federation?
If so...Does this already exist as a tac note?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 04:16 pm: Edit
Confirm.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 06:05 pm: Edit
Ok under the scenario rules it says an expeditionary force can enter Federation territory, however what if they get cut off they shouldn't be interned it only makes sense that they become homeless ships but still count as the one allowed expeditionary fleet.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 12:55 am: Edit
Nick:
Would it be possible to post the updated errata to include the CL26 info (minus the SO/MA stuff now that CO is the standing rule)? We will need it for Origins. Thanks.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 11:01 am: Edit
John, of course not. The scenario is limiting you to one expeditionary fleet in Fed space. There is no sneaky way to get more. Only an expeditionary fleet is allowed in Fed space, nothing else is. Once the first fleet is no longer expeditionary, it would be interned.
Edward, If the Kzinti expeditionary fleet is cut off (if Klingons split Fed/Kzinti space apart), well, then it is cut off, I would say it is (for purposes of this weird scenario situation) still expeditionary so long as you don't declare other ships expeditionary. As to whether you can have those same ships be expeditionary AND homeless at the same time (to supply them again), I am not sure. I suppose I see nothing really preventing it, although it is a weird case. I guess you would pay BOTH the homeless (Fed EPs) and expeditionary (Kzinti EPs) costs (even if the expeditionary cost technically isn't getting through, they need to be paid so that when contact is reestablished they are there). Again, this is a weird situation due to the specific rules for that part of the scenario, turns 7-9, in normal play this is not needed, if the expeditionary fleet were cut off, you could just declare it homeless, in this case that doesn't work since pure homeless ships would be interened due to the scenario rules. Fair enough?
Chuck, you will have to ask SVC for that. One, I accidentally deleted the items I was sent to look over for CL#26 (usually I keep them until I get my copy of the CL), two, even if I did have the list, SVC often makes last minute changes before publication based on more reports than just mine, in other words changes I don't see until I get my copy of CL. So if you want the list as it appears in CL#26, you need to get it from him.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 01:33 pm: Edit
In order for the Kzin Expeditionary fleet to not be in the Kzin/Fed supply grid wouldn't you need to cut off the Fed off map? Since you can strat from Fed to Kzin off map, wouldn't that count for expeditionary supply. I find it hard to believe that the Klingons would cut off the Fed off map on turns 7-9(10+ maybe).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 04:10 pm: Edit
Bill, rule (411.71), last sentence, prohibits an expeditionary fleet from tracing its supply route to home space through the off map area. So the Kzin expeditionary fleet must trace its supply path through Fed/Kzin bases, entirely on map. And that is not unreasonable for the coalition to disrupt.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 04:11 pm: Edit
Like I said, this is a weird case, and if it happens it won't happen for very long.
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 01:37 am: Edit
Annex (701) Order of Battle from AO states that SAF can be built only in the Spring and then references (520.0) in CO which states that SAFs can be built once a year in either turn. Which is correct?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 08:24 am: Edit
I think that's in the AO after action posted elsewhere.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 09:01 am: Edit
John, the errata for that item is posted in the F&E Q&A archive (and will be in CL#26). It is:
(701.0) Should say one SAF per year in either turn.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 01:07 am: Edit
OK Nick, a question about small scale combat, rule 318.7
The Klingons have a F5V carrier, with an F5E and E4A for escorts. Total compot of 14, though the whole group would take 26 damage to kill in normal combat.
The Feds come out and challenge it to small scale combat, with two ships. A FFS scout, and a tug with a prime team and troop pods; the prime team is adding to the chance of capture, should that option come up.
So, the Klingon compot is 14, to the Fed's defensive compot of 13 -- no bonus there.
The Fed's compot is only 4, to the Klingons defensive compot of 18 -- clearly no bonus there.
The Feds do have a prime team, giving them a +1 to the die roll; they also have a scout, giving them another +1 to the die roll.
So... even though the Federation force has only 4 points of firepower, they have an astounding 50% chance of destroying the entire Klingon force, and a respectable 1 in 6 chance of capturing a ship in the process (a bonus on the capture for the troopship, and a bonus for prime team, for a total of 2-4 on 2D6).
So my question is, did I read these rules correctly? Has there been any updates or corrections to these rules that maybe I missed?
Thanks, Nick.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 01:48 am: Edit
Nick, how many SIDS steps can a Starbase repair on its own? I take (420.21) to mean that a starbase can generate point to repair a SIDS to mean that it could use its 16 points to repair 4 SIDS.
A clarification would be helpful. Thanks
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 07:06 am: Edit
Chris you beat me to the punch...
Yes, it would be helpful.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 11:14 am: Edit
Kevin, there are no updates that deal with this situation. May need to be looked at, but probably not get until origins, or after.
Chris, yes, an uncrippled starbase can repair multiple SIDS steps, each using 4 repair points.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 11:14 am: Edit
Kevin, I proposed my own idea for a solution in the discussion topic you started for this.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 11:46 am: Edit
I saw it. Thanks, Nick.
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 12:01 pm: Edit
Nick,
a question that came up during my game with Scott last night. At what point during the turn can Homeless Ships and/or a Expeditionary Fleet be declared?
Can it only be done during the Economic Phase or can it be done at the end of your turn after you've discovered that some of your ships can't trace a supply line back to their bases but to an Allied Base?
Thanks
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 12:15 pm: Edit
Since Craig asked his question, I'll ask mine....
If you have a hex of ships in supply, with ships out of supply (20 ships, 10 adopted as homeless, 10 not).
Rule (410.32) says "Scouts retain their capabilities but ships out of supply cannot conduct two-hex reaction movement."
So could I have the whole stack, with the scout in supply, react 1 hex, then, the 1/2 with the scout react the 2nd hex?
(410.31) says "Fleets out of supply cannot use extended reaction range (205.3)", but I'm not trying to go the 2nd hex with the out of supply ships. I'll be OK with the ships just going the 1 hex.
That make sense?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 08:54 pm: Edit
Craig, homeless and expeditionary ships are always declared during the economic phase/start of the turn. Not during movement or any other phase.
Scott, makes sense to me.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 06:47 pm: Edit
Here's a toughie for you Nick.
Situation.
Hex xx01: 20 out of supply Coalition ships.
Hex xx02: 15 Alliance ships
Hex xx03: 12 Coalition ships, 1 scout
Hex xx04: Coalition supply point
Raid phase.
1) Alliance selected to raid hex XX01
2) Coaliton react a ship into xx02
3) Does that now make a supply path to XX01? It's still the Raid phase, and not "Before Combat" for evaulating Supply. Does my "evaulation of supply" happen in the True Combat Phase (ie after all normal movement) or "evaulate supply whenever (whatever phase) Combat is initiated."?
That make sense?
Thanks Nick
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 07:54 am: Edit
Nick,
Weird base upgrade questions (sorry I don't have exact rule numbers - I don't have my books handy):
With AO base/fighter module upgrades (441), bases can now be built - but there seem to have been some changes to existing rules.
The section on adding fighter modules to existing bases says that a tug can deliver a base upgrade or fighter modules (4 for tug, 2 for LTT) but not both. However, the normal base upgrade mission from FE2k includes (invisibly) 2xfighter modules.
So, I'm curious which of the following (or more than one) is correct:
- If I have a MB I'm upgrading to a BATS, I can have 1 tug perform the upgrade & get BATS(6) the next turn (ie, the base FE2k base upgrade rule)
- If I have a MB->BATS, I can have 1 tug perform the upgrade & get BATS(3) (ie, only part of the fighter modules)
- MB->BATS with 1 tug & 1 LTT (or 2 tugs), I can get MB(6) this turn (effective immediately) and BATS(6) next turn
- BATS(0)->SB(24), can this be done with 1 tug (and the fighters aren't active until the turn the upgrade is complete)
- BATS(0)->SB(24) with 1 tug & 1 LTT, the BATS becomes BATS(6) immediately, and the rest takes place after the upgrade completes.
I think all these are legal (ie, I don't think that 441 was intended to remove the base+fighter modules upgrade) - but I'd like to get an official ruling.
Thanks,
Tony
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 11:13 am: Edit
Scott, I do not believe you can react in that way. Rule (314.241) allows you to have one ship "moving by reaction movement to the Raid Target Hex". (Which can include extended reaction.) Even if you include extended reaction, that does not negate the requirement to move to the Raid Hex. If you cannot reach the Raid Target Hex (as you can't in your example due to pinning), the I don't think you can react to the raid with that ship. In any case, rule (314.18) seems to imply that supply is not evaluated (or re-evaluated) in the raid phase at all, so even if you changed supply routes by reaction somehow, supply doesn't get reevaluated until after the raid phase is over. So supply status from the start of the turn must still be in force.
Also remember, rule (411.2) allows supply routes to pass through hexes containing friendly and enemy ships ONLY during the combat phase, not any other phase (like the Raid Phase).
Tony,
- If I have a MB I'm upgrading to a BATS, I can have 1 tug perform the upgrade & get BATS(6) the next turn (ie, the base FE2k base upgrade rule)
CORRECT, costs 9 EPs
- If I have a MB->BATS, I can have 1 tug perform the upgrade & get BATS(3) (ie, only part of the fighter modules)
I don't see how. The standard rule (9 EPs) gives you 6 fighter factors, the new rule (7 EPs) gives you no fighter factors, there is no rule allowing only one module being built in the original upgrade that I can see.
- MB->BATS with 1 tug & 1 LTT (or 2 tugs), I can get MB(6) this turn (effective immediately) and BATS(6) next turn
I see nothing preventing this.
- BATS(0)->SB(24), can this be done with 1 tug (and the fighters aren't active until the turn the upgrade is complete)
Going from BATS(0), I believe one tug would create either SB(0) for 28 EPs, or SB(6) for 30 EPs. The original 2 missing fighter modules can be added with another tug, or built by the SB itself after it is completed (which I guess is basically what you are saying above).
- BATS(0)->SB(24) with 1 tug & 1 LTT, the BATS becomes BATS(6) immediately, and the rest takes place after the upgrade completes.
Um, I think you mean BATS(0)->SB(12), (there is no way to get 24 fighter factors on a SB), otherwise looks legal, the SB upgrade costing 30 EPs in this case of course.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 11:15 am: Edit
Unless you are talking about Federation doubled fighters (502.91), then it would work, but you have to pay for the extra fighters of course.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 02:26 pm: Edit
Sorry - those should be SB(12). Got carried away
So, basically, the original upgrade rules still apply (get 1 step upgrade & 2 fighter modules effectively) or the new rules (ie, only 1 step upgrade - modules must be installed seperately).
That's kinda what I thought, but I wanted to make sure.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, June 14, 2003 - 04:29 pm: Edit
302.732 refers to retreating into a hex in which there are a number of enemy units less than the number of friendly units retreating into the hex. It further specifies that fighters or PFs are formed into ship equivalents, which of course means that six fighters count as one ship. Six fighters, however, are still apparently six units, so that a planet with a single PDU and six fighters still counts as seven units for purposes of what size fleet is allowed to retreat into its hex.
Clearly that isn't the intent of the rule, but that is what the rule says, isn't it?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Saturday, June 14, 2003 - 09:43 pm: Edit
Todd,
Fighters aren't units. They're not listed in (756) as being "non-ship units."
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 01:23 am: Edit
So this is wrong?
>By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 10:57 am: Edited
...and just about anything in the game is a "unit", ship, fighter, PDU, base, FRD, etc.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 03:24 pm: Edit
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 09:01 pm: Edit
Let me discuss this with Nick.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 11:56 pm: Edit
Nick, if I have a Base, any type of Base. I'll use Base Station as an example, has less than 14 Compat is resolved under 310 (lets say early years, no fighters)
So under 310, if the attacker rolls a defender crippled. What happens to the base? 1 SIDS, or totally crippled.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 04:12 am: Edit
Ok, question:
Raids:
Raiding ship enters hex with 3 cripples and 2 FRDs. Let's say that no ships are in reaction range (odd, but just for this question)
Now, the defender can use the 3 cripples to fight the raider. If they decline to fight the raider the that raider can take a shot at the FRDs with no other defenders yes?
So, for example you raid a hex with 3xCW cripples, with a Fed DNL. The fight would use small combat table with no modifiers yes?
Now, if the raider kills those 3xCW by scoring a cripple or kill roll, i.e. 5 or 6 on the die, then the DNL can attack the FRDs yes? With a +1 to the die roll for single combat? What happens if you get a defender crippled roll on the chart?
By John Robinson (John_R) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 09:57 am: Edit
Nick - Is there a composite list of ships eligible for the leader ruler under 303.5? I have found 1 ship here and 2 ships there that have been added to the list, but don't want to miss anything.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 12:42 pm: Edit
Nick, when do you decide if a Prime Team that is on a ship contribute to it's COMPOT?
The situation is this, imagine a Fed CVF on a Raid, with a Prime Team. Thus 13 COMPOT. Small enough to fall into a mandatory Small Unit Combat.
A Prime Team, now increases it over the 14 COMPOT for the minimum mandatory Small Unit Combat, if I get to use the +2 from it when deciding my "Total COMPOT".
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 06:55 pm: Edit
(442.61 and .62) If Hydrax or Kzintai is conquered during a Coalition Spring turn does the Alliance still get a chance to evacuate their annualized fighters?
(442.61) Merely states that the annualized fighters are received in the Spring turn of each year. It doesn’t specifically state Alliance (or Coalition) Spring turns.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 08:05 pm: Edit
Nick,
I have a question. I have been told that there has been extensive discussion on this question but I have not seen it so I am going to ask.
Does an attacker have a choice about using SIDS when Directing Damage against a base? i.e. can an attacker use directed damage to kill a BATS or SB in one round.
The way I am reading the rule, SIDS are to make it take longer to kill a base. Rule 208.81 says the attacking player may use DD to score a SIDS. My opponent was interpreting this to mean he could one shot a base.
However, further down in the same paragraph rule 308.81 says that the attacking player is never required to use SIDS, and could INSTEAD allow the DEFENDER to score the points on SHIPS defending the base. To me, this sounds like the attacking players choice is to either DD against a base via SIDS or allow the defender to choose how the damage is taken.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:42 pm: Edit
An individual fighter is not a unit (I was unfortunately a bit sloppy in that part of the referenced post), certainly not for the situation described above (counting a base and 6 fighter factors as 7 units).
Scott, I would say it is fully crippled, since only crippled is crippled, one SIDS step is not crippled. If it was uncrippled but with one or two previous SIDS steps, then it is still just crippled by a crippled result.
Chris, looks good to me. If you "cripple" the FRD? It would be destroyed I suppose, since it has no crippled side. Any fighters on it as well, although 1/2 the PFs survive (if there were any, possibly to transfer if there is space on another unit) by rule (318.722).
John, I am not aware of any list, as such. There are some additions in the master errata file, I believe (IIRC, without looking). I will be updating the file with all the latest changes from CL#26, so after that it would essentially contain the list you request, in the form of errata additions to the rule.
Scott, when you build your battleforce in step 5-3E (secretly and simultaneously with your opponent), you assign any prime team missions. In this case you would build your battleforce before deciding which type of combat you are using, since you need to know the size of the force to decide which combat to use. So in your example you would use normal combat, you have more than 14 attack factors, so single ship combat is out.
John, I believe they are received in the production step, so if you capital is lost before a given production step, then you only evacuate the existing stockpile, and you don't get any more once your capital is lost.
Russell, if the attacker has enough points they can cripple/destroy a base without going the SIDS route. See the example in (308.84), it mentions crippling a base all at once. It is similar to being able to either damaging a carrier group all in one shot, or via the CEDS damage rules.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 10:38 am: Edit
I'm fairly sure this has been asked but I can't find the answer.
The FHF has a YIS date of Y174 on the SIT, but its listed as a substitution in Y175. So is this an error? and if so which way (I am assuming the SIT is wrong right now)
By Sean William (Pika24u) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 06:17 pm: Edit
Can enyone give me the rules?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 06:21 pm: Edit
What, like all the books?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 06:49 pm: Edit
The rulebooks are available for purchase separate from the games, so if you just want the rules without paying the full cost you can do that. See the first four items at:
http://www.starfleetstore.com/MERCHANT2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=S&Category_Code=R
Or, you could try the buy/sell topic to see if anyone is willing to part with books they no longer need. See:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/25/86.html?1055819586
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 07:28 pm: Edit
Nick
Question #1) when are Prime Team Missions decided?
Where specifically in the SOP?
Is it after forces are revealed (3D), do I get to see my opponent's fleet then decide, "Hmm, I need a Marine this time", or "Hmm, I need 2 COMPOT"? Or is Prime Team missions decided in (3A) when fleets are deployed and hidden before showing your opponent?
Question #2) When do you declare how many fighters you are holding in your fighter bay?
I'd assume (3A) your hidden deployment of ships for combat, but I'm just making sure.
Because you can launch a SWAC after you see your opponent's fleet, and fighters are just like a SWAC (i.e. a shuttle)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 08:05 pm: Edit
Unless specifically told otherwise in a rule, I would have to say those are part of the secret/simultaneous step of battleforce determination.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 10:13 pm: Edit
Question #1) when are Prime Team Missions decided?
A1: See AO SoP 5-3E: "Players assign Prime Teams (522.34) and missions."
Question #2) When do you declare how many fighters you are holding in your fighter bay?
A2: Also see AO SoP 5-3E: "Players secretly select units to be in battle force..."
SWAC missions are assigned in AO SoP 5-4A1.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 11:48 pm: Edit
Nick,
Follow up on my question about SIDS. the example in 308.84 does mention that a base can be taken out in one shot but it specifically says it must have enough points in SIDS to take it all out. i.e. 4 SIDS left requires 72 points to kill it. By following this example, a BATS would require 66 points to one shot kill it or 56 with a Mauler. (3 SIDS at 18 pts each to cripple (54pts) and then 12 pts to kill.)
My opponent says he could use 36 pts to kill a bats in one shot (12 pts double to 24 to cripple and 6 pts doubled to 12 to Kill)
By the way these rules are written, an attacker MUST always use SIDS when directing against a SB or BATS.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 01:27 pm: Edit
Russell, if the attacker uses SIDS, then he can only score one SIDS step each round (more with marine attacks). If the attacker uses the normal rules, ignore any existing SIDS damage and calculate the required damage normally.
The 72 points listed in the example is just directing on the starbase to cripple it under the normal rules and ignoring the existing SIDS damage. The starbase (uncrippled) has 36 defense, and doubled that is 72. What the rule is saying is that EVEN IF the starbase has some SIDS damage on it, it still takes the attacker 72 pts of DD (less with a mauler) to cripple it in one blow if he decides to try that.
It is just a coincidence that 72 is also the required damage to do four SIDS steps (18x4=72), but that is NOT what is happening here, remember you CANNOT do four SIDS steps in one round from fleet damage( 308.82). The 72 in the example is 36x2=72, NOT 18x4=72.
Now, if the defender wants to self cripple a base, then he resolves damage equal to the uncrippled defense factor minus the existing SIDS damage (4 or 4.5 each SIDS step depending on if it is a BATS or SB).
For the attacker to direct on a BATS, it would take 24 (12 doubled) to cripple, and 12 (6 doubled) to kill, 36 total, even if there were one or two SIDS steps already on the base.
For the defender to self cripple a BATS with one SIDS step only resolves 12-4=8 damage. (BATS SIDS are a 4 point reduction each.) For the attacker to direct damage to cripple a BATS with one SIDS step, still requires 24 (12 doubled) damage points (less with mauler).
For the defender to self cripple a starbase with 4 SIDS steps only resolves 36-18=18 damage. (SB SIDS are a 4.5 point reduction each). For the attacker to direct damage to cripple a starbase with 4 SIDS steps, still requires 72 (36 doubled) damage points (less with mauler), just as if the Starbase had no damage.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 01:30 pm: Edit
As a different example, for the defender to self cripple a starbase with 2 SIDS steps only resolves 36-9=27 damage. For the attacker to direct damage to cripple a starbase with 2 SIDS steps, still requires 72 (36 doubled) damage points (less with mauler), just as if the Starbase had no damage, or any other number of SIDS steps. In the "all in one go" case, the attacker just ignores existing SIDS damage. That is what the example is saying.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 12:57 pm: Edit
Nick, this rule:
(308.41) If an uncrippled mauler is included in the Battle Force, the owning player can use a number of points equal to the mauler's attack factor ....
Do I have to use a mauler's full points (ie 10 points from a D6M, 7 from a MD5). Or may I only use 3 to 5 points, if that is all I want to?
Example:
I am mauling a Kzinti BTV+CLE+EFF. It takes 10+6+4, doubled to 40 to cripple it. I have 32 with a D6M. I decide to maul for 8, then the other 32 damage to finish crippling it.
Is that correct, or do I have to maul for 10, and have 2 points remaining for the Kzinti to allocate?
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 05:31 pm: Edit
I would like to confirm another issue relating to Scott T.'s situation:
According the the SOP in AO, a player resolves his own damage before taking mandatory fighter losses because of missing carriers. Is the following tactic legal?
My attacker has done 32 points of damage. He elects to use a mauler to cripple my BTV+CLE+EFF group which resolves 30 points. I self-cripple a CLE to resolve 6 more. Now, the BTV's 3 fighters have nowhere to relocate so they are now resolved for 3 more points. Is this allowed to give me a -7 on the subsequent battle round.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 05:36 pm: Edit
Man, I wish I could read when I write.....
Nick, in my example, the numbers should be:
32 damage available
8 damage to maul w/ the D6M
24 damage remaining to finish crippling.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 06:52 pm: Edit
Nick, regarding the F+E errata.
The errata for (302.742), part says "All escorts can stay with their charges, but ...".
In the (302.742) rule in F+E2K. Which section does this apply to (A-E)? I don't understand what that errata effects.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 10:02 pm: Edit
Scott Tenhoff, rule (308.411) seems to say that you can only "dial down" a mauler when the target requires fewer points than the full amount. The end of the rule says you cannot use a lower number than that, so it makes sense that if the target requires more damage than the maulers value, you would have to use the full amount.
Scott Burleson, (302.614) says that lost fighter capacity due to self crippling does not produce minus points. I would say in your example the lost fighter factors produce no minus points, since the lost capacity that doomed the fighters was from a voluntarily crippled ship. If (in one combat round) you lost 10 fighter factors due to lost capacity, 6 from a ship directed on and 4 from a ship self crippled, then you would have 6 minus points. I am not sure how the sequence of play enters into this, and am not sure what part of the sequence of play you are referring to.
Scott Tenhoff, it refers to escorts assigned to "slow" units at the start of the combat step (when all escorts and groups are assigned). So if you assigned escorts to a troopfreighter, or to an auxiliary carrier, those escorts get to participate in the slow unit battle as well.
I don't know that I will be able to answer any more questions until after Origins, I am working and have much to do yet before I take off for Columbus on Wednesday...
Nick
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 10:07 pm: Edit
Do raiding ships pin enemy ships in their raid target hex? or can those ships react out of the hex (onto other raiders)?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 11:39 pm: Edit
Rule (314.241), last sentence, specifically says ships can react out of one raid hex to another. Essentially, pinning calculations are not performed during the raid phase. The raiding ship is busy raiding (seeking convoys to smash, etc.), it doesn't have time to pin enemy warships.
Thats all now, I mean it.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 11:59 pm: Edit
"Scott Burleson, (302.614) says that lost fighter capacity due to self crippling does not produce minus points."
"since the lost capacity that doomed the fighters was from a voluntarily crippled ship. "
Nick,
In the example, the opponent, not the owning player crippled the BTV.
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 01:17 am: Edit
Nick,
I believe that 308.23 is the overriding rule in this case since the BTV was not voluntarily crippled (in which case 302.614 would prevent the fighters from becoming minus points).
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 07:40 am: Edit
I think Nick's point was that the owning player voluntarily crippled his CLE after the BTV group had been crippled. Because he did that, he forfieted the right to claim minus points from the unhomed fighters. However, he disn't seem to back it up.
Otherwise, we have a pretty stupid situation. The coalition can do 31 damage and DD 4PDUs with a mauler. The Zin could technically then resolve the 1 damage by overcrippling a BC, giving them 7 minus points, and then slap on the 24 minus points on from unhomed fighters to give them a whopping -31.
No-one's ever done that, although if it is legal, I could tacnote it, as it will make capitals harder to reduce. Even if the attacker just DD'd one PDU, the defender can wrangle out -13 pts for next round quite easily.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 10:30 am: Edit
I was under the impression that the fighters lost due to decreased capacity are burned first, thus absorbing the damage before anything else could be crippled. Anyone got the exact sequence of damage distribution rules handy?
By Peter Riewe (Riewe) on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 12:00 pm: Edit
Question with regards to the small scale battle system:
When in the sequence of play is small scale invoked?
The specific situation is two Klingon E4's are being attacked by Kzinti BC and CL.
Can one E4 do withdrawal before combat before small scale is invoked?
Next situation:
Three Klingon E4's are attacked by Kzinti BC and CL.
Assuming one E4 is withdrawing before combat and two is left, is the defender allowed to only show up with one E4 for small scale combat (Since both are flagship candidates) or is small scale invoked before the battleforce determination step.
Thanks,
Peter
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 12:07 pm: Edit
I looked it up extensively. It's at the end of Step 3 (3E?). It's in the AO SOP in the back of the book.
It's after battle-lines are formed and revealed.
Withdrawl is conducted before battlelines are formed (IIRC) so that should be no problem.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 01:16 pm: Edit
Regarding fighter losses due to lack of space:
(501.7) does state that when a carrier is destroyed or crippled and there is no capacity for the excess fighters, the fighter losses are resolved "immediately at that point in the combat round." (my emphasis)
So, regardless of the SOP, when the BTV was crippled, its fighters were immediately destroyed.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 04:54 pm: Edit
Ahh, thanks Jeff. I was thinking fighters were resolved at the end of all other damage, and I missed that reference to the proper sequence.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 05:31 pm: Edit
I believe that may need to be errata'd in the AO SOP. I'll have to check when I get home, but I'm pretty sure it has that somewhere else.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 05:52 pm: Edit
The AO SOP does say
5-6E: Conduct ship transfers of fighters (501.6) and PFs (502.45).
Which comes after 5-6A and -6B, resolving general, non-directed damage.
Note, however, that this is transfers. Not damage resolution.
By james robertson (Mordak5) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 05:26 pm: Edit
in the general war are the kzinti mb's inactive on turn 1, I know they are in the indepentant scenerios, not sure if that applies to the general war.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 05:35 pm: Edit
What do you mean by inactive?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 05:51 pm: Edit
The home fleet is released on turn 1, so that MB is ready to go from the beginning.
The Baron's fleet is release turn 2 during strat move, so could be setup then if you desire.
By james robertson (Mordak5) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 03:07 pm: Edit
cheers, I want to convert the MB to a BAT and then a SB as fast as possible. does that mean that I can upgrade it on turn one. from a MB to a BAT?
Also if I move a FRD/TUG to a hex in op movment is the FRD a valid retrograde point in the smae turn?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 07:05 pm: Edit
No, the MBs in the starting OOB are in storage. So, you have to set up the MB on Turn 1, convert it to a BATS on Turn 2.
Yes, the FRD is a valid retrograde point, even if it does move.
By james robertson (Mordak5) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 02:53 am: Edit
thats what I thought, shame about the MB :-)
thanks
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 10:54 am: Edit
Nevermind, found what I was looking for in the archives
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 11:20 am: Edit
If you conduct a fighting retreat over a unit, and you have 14 COMPOT (so it gets bumped to the Small Unit Combat stuff)
You destroy the defender.
Do you have to still retreat more?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 11:31 am: Edit
I want to understand SWAC's fully. Let me see if I got this straight:
Step 1) Deploy the SWAC with my battleforce, declaring if it is in the carrier or not.
Step 2) Forces are revealed
Step 3) Then decide on SWAC mission (ie disrupt bombardment, go wild, etc.)
Right?
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 11:36 am: Edit
F&E2K Question.
Does a sngle box of F&E2K have sufficient counters to set up the Klingon OOB? I appear to be short D7s and D6s...
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 11:48 am: Edit
It should be enough for the basic fleets, but probably not including the Imperial War Reserve and all the Mothballed D6's
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 12:11 pm: Edit
I seem to be short on D6s and D7s, short by 3 of each (i.e. 21 are required, 3 per fleet, but only 18 are in the box).
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 12:20 pm: Edit
Well,I don't know what to tell you then. Used up all the 3x of them too huh?
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 12:38 pm: Edit
Yeah - I have 3x 3D7, 9x D7, 3x 3D6, 9x D6
By james robertson (Mordak5) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 12:50 pm: Edit
there are never enough counters :-)
By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 12:52 pm: Edit
I think there are also some 6x counters for D6 and/or D7
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 01:18 pm: Edit
David. Just for the D5. Plus, each of the 7 initial fleets has 3 D7s and 3 D6s.
And here I was, hoping I could set up the game, and play a few turns, to get a general feel for the game after a 10 year hiatus
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 01:28 pm: Edit
Well - it's not a great solution, but it'll work...
There's always the "Ship #" counters
There's always the Romulan fleet
There's always good ole pen & paper records
By Oliver Dewey Upshaw III (Oliverupshaw) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 02:44 pm: Edit
There is also converting D7s in inactive fleets that have a Starbase into D7Cs. As well as converting active D6/7s into Maulers, scouts, drone ships, tugs and carriers.
By james robertson (Mordak5) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 05:37 pm: Edit
why can the kzinti not go through hex 0805 and 0905 to attack Lyran defences. given the size of the hexs they could slip a force through easy enough?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 05:42 pm: Edit
Because the Kzinti's have an agreement with the Klingons "I, Patriarch, do somely swear, to not intrude on our mutual neutral zone..."
Your talking Alliance Turn 1 right?
By james robertson (Mordak5) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 05:49 pm: Edit
yeah, its a pain
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 01:00 am: Edit
Just take it as a blessing that the Klingons cannot attack turn 1
By james robertson (Mordak5) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 03:44 am: Edit
I have a change to kill 3 lyran bats and the SB at 0608, no phase of turn 1, (he has no reserves)
It will leave a sqd of 1DN 2BC 1CC CV CVL 2CLE 2EEF DF SF unable to retrograde from 0608 tho, do you think its worth the probable loss of these ship to kill the SB+FRD on 0608?
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 09:26 am: Edit
Remember you can retreat from the battle on the round that the starbase is destroyed, even if he retreated earlier, but you can't pursue him. Would putting yourself 1 hex closer to Kzin space help?
If its a supply issue you could leave a couple FF/SF/EFF's out in open space to guard your supply lines.
Not really sure that its worth losing a DN and some carriers but if you can get those ships out its worth crippling them all probably.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 10:21 am: Edit
Jeff, Nick,
Regards that BTV+CLE+EFF group question up thread...I thought that the moment a tug was crippled, it's pods immediately ceased to operate.
Thus any fighters lost due to lack of room happened with no minus point effect.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 12:30 pm: Edit
Nick:
A couple of questions on the Gorn/Romulan involvment in the general war, turn's 10-19:
1) On turn 10, can the Romulans assist the Klingons with an assualt on Tholia without allowing the Feds to attack them? What Romulan Fleets would be available for such an operation?
2) Could the Romulans operate their economy at Limited war on turn 10 and still attack? (since they have no ships in hostile territory during the economic phase of turn 10).
3) If the Romulans assist in an assualt on Tholia, and retrograde out of Tholian space, can they remain at Limited War on turn 11? (652.52 seems to suggest this is possible, but this rule applies only in a Free Campaign)
4) Do the Gorns actually join the alliance on turn 10 if the Romulans do not attack the Feds? Rule 603.5 seems to say so - I think that this may be a typo.
5) If the Romulans never attack the Feds or the Gorn, when is the alliance allowed to enter Romulan territory? (it seems that there is no enabling rule allowing them to do so until scenario 604 - turn 20).
Thanks
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 01:01 pm: Edit
Trent,
As with any other carrier, the loss of fighter capacity on carrier tugs due to crippling is handled the same.
If there are no empty hangers to accept the fighters, they are lost immediately. If the BTV/CVT/Carrier is crippled by directed damage, they can generate minus points. If crippled voluntarily, they don't.
By james robertson (Mordak5) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 03:15 pm: Edit
there is no retrograde point, I think the fleet will take cripples getting the SB, but the next Lyran turn they will get jumped. I think the physiological effect of losing a SB that deep in Lyran space may cause the Lyran to slow his attack, leaving me more time to deal with the klingon.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 05:38 pm: Edit
James,
you should take the discussion over to general discussions, we can chew on it there.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 10:52 pm: Edit
Nick/Jeff
Follow-up to above:
6) If the Coalition attacks Tholia on turn 10, What (if anything) can the Federation do to defend Tholia? Can the 7th fleet enter by reserve movement? 503.34 seems to say the Feds cannot enter until Tholia falls, but 602.48 allows the 7th to enter Tholian space under different circumstances. In this case the Klingons are already at war with the Feds, if that matters.
Thanks
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 12:53 am: Edit
Since Nick is at Origins, I'll jump in and answer the Romulan/Tholian question, as well.
John Smedley,
1) If the Klingons are at War with the Feds and attack the Tholians, then the Tholians join the Alliance. If the Romulans also attack the Tholians, then the Romulans have joined the Coalition, and are technically at war with the Federation.
If the Klingons don't attack the Tholians, but only the Romulans do, I would have to say that the Federation can support the Tholians under the Tholian Limited War rules in (602.48).
2) The economic provisions of (652.3) have been ruled to apply to the General War. So, the Romulans could operate on a Limited War economy, provided that all of their ships are out of enemy space after the Retrograde phase.
3) See #2 above.
4) (603.5) is not a typo. If the Romulans don't attack the Federation, the Gorns can help the Federation fight the Klingons. A few Tactics notes have been written about this, hoping that the Gorns will reduce their fleet enough that the Romulans can smash what remains.
5) Technically, if the Romulans never enter the war, the Federation and Gorns will never attack them. These are the "peaceful" races, after all.
6) See Number 1, above. The specific scenario rules in (602.48) override the general rule in (503.34). If the Coalition have already attacked the Feds, the Federation cannot enter Tholian space. If the Coalition has not attacked, then the Federation can. I guess the Tholians are a little schizo .
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 08:49 am: Edit
Thanks Jeff
Follow-up to number 1:
7) 603.2 has the following text:
"Federation 5th, 6th and 7th Fleets are released if the Roms enter the Federation or Adjacent Neutral Zones"
"If the Romulans have entered Federation territory, the Gorn enter the War"
It is possible for the Roms to attack Tholia w/o entering the Federation or adjacent NZs. In this case (and assuming the Klingons are already at war with the Federation, so (602.48) does not apply), is Tholian space considered to be Federation Territory?
It seems that the 6th fleet is not released, and the Gorn do not participate beyond Limited War, unless the Romulans actually enter Federation space. I note that If the Romulans attack the Gorn w/o attacking the Federation, the Feds are not allowed to attack the Romulans imediately (603.6), so there is certianly a precident for a Romulan attack on the Tholians not leading to open hostilities with the Feds.
More specifically, is the 6th fleet released? Do the Gorns enter on turn 12, (as if the Feds had been invaded), or in a limited fashion on turn 10 (as if the Feds had not been invaded)?
8) Follow up to #4: If the Gorns enter turn 10, what build list do they use for turns 10&11?
9) If the conditions of 603.5 persist longer than 4 turns, are the Gorn allowed to violate 652.22? Are they required to?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 03:16 pm: Edit
Jeff,
Also on 603.2, it states that if the Romulans invade the Federation, they become part of the Coalition. That implies that if they do not then they are a third party. Can Romulans and other Coalition ships enter the same hex without the result of combat between the two?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 03:22 pm: Edit
Ok, I must have been confused on the Limited War idea.
I always thought that a state of limited war allows you to help defend an ally, but not go on the offensive into an enemy's territory.
Is this not the case? Can I attack an enemy at will during Limited War as long as I never leave any ships in his territory after retrograde?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 01:17 pm: Edit
Well, Origins is over, and I am about to head out for home (a couple of hours drive) and will try to answer questions tonight sometime.
It was a blast, I know the F&E people had a great time, although I didn't see much of those games due to judging SFB.
The setups were really great with Chuck Strong's custom laminated large color maps, and color fleet charts. Very cool...
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 06:58 pm: Edit |
July - August 2003 Archive
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 12:17 pm: Edit
Alright, I didn't get to this as soon as I thought I would, but today I have off so I will run through everything and get questions answered this evening.
Nick
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 12:19 pm: Edit
Thank You!
Our Coalition retrograde for turn 9 is on hold pending a resolution of the rules for a Klino-Romulan assualt on the Tholians.
By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 03:49 pm: Edit
Ok guys I have a couple of questions. I have been playing the Second Fed Klingon war from Cap log 19 and there have been some non mechanic questions that have come up. Did the Organians institute the neutral zones due to the war or before it? If they did because of the war then the neutral zones are disputed border areas? If that is the case, are Shermans' Planet and the Bezwell index neutral or are they affiliated with an Empire? If they are technically neutral, do they lean toward one of The Empires?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 05:27 pm: Edit
Nick.
I'm still not clear on this issue, as there seems to be many conflicting opinions.
How many carrier escorts can I convert in one turn? Is it
1) unlimited at each SB, and I can do a normal conversion at each SB as well. Carrier war seems to say this.
2) basically 1 per SB, but if I havn't built/converted all my carrier groups, I can do "conversions without the carrier".
3) Some ruling I seem to rmemeber from some dicussions - up to 3 per SB conversion allowed, but CEDS counts against this, reducing your conversion capacity by 1EP per escort converted. Capital SBs can do 5 escort conversions.
4) Something else?
In all cases, I think substitution limits are normally the maximum number of escorts you would need to build all allowable carriers +3 extra. If I use all my allowable substitutions, would this mean that any conversions of "carrier groups without the carrier" under (2) would be disallowed?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 07:21 pm: Edit
Must tugs or LTTs that are transferring EPs via strategic movement stop at either their own or their donor's capital, or may they continue to strategically move after depositing their EP cargo? If they may continue to move, may they later change missions without being at their own capital?
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 08:37 pm: Edit
Nick you answered this at Origins but I thought I'd post the question here for all to read.
Q. In the 2nd turn of PF deployment are the Lyrans (or any race for that matter) required to place PFs on their off-map SB? The rules do not explain this as being an exception so we think yes. Once deployed the rules state the PFs can be removed at a later time.
Your ruling was as above, please verify for the archives, thanks.
Lawrence
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 10:05 pm: Edit
Peter Riewe: small scale battle/withdrawal. Whether you use normal or small scale combat won't be decided until the size of the battleforce is known, so you would have to have done withdrawal before combat already.
James Robertson: Kzinti MBs inactive? Tony is correct, the MBs start in storage, and are released with the appropriate fleet. FRDs are always retrograde points, whether they moved or not on any given turn.
Scott Tenhoff: small combat/fighting retreat. There is a problem with using small scale combat for fighting retreat in that the BIR difference 0-10, is not represented. You should probably use the standard combat with plus-minus points since the BIR is important to fighting retreat. If you do destroy the "blocker", you still retreat again since that is what the rule says, fight one round, then retreat again, the results of the "one round" are unimportant.
Scott Tenhoff: SWACS You are correct, see the sequence of play for combat in Combined Ops and Advanced Ops, this is clearly explained in both places.
James Robertson: Lyran first attack restrictions. See (503.61), it has the specific restriction, and the reason. The Klingons and Lyrans are sharing NZ hexes, but also don't want to "tip off" the Kzintis of their alliance until turn 2 (the Klingon attack).
John Smedly: 7: Jeff may be wrong on letting the Roms attack Tholians independently of the Feds, I would point out that there is no rule allowing the Romulans to attack the Tholians on turn 10 (unless they join the coalition at the same time by attacking the Feds). Rule (603.2) says the Roms may attack the Feds (they may not attack Tholians, Gorns, or anybody else, since only the Feds are listed). It also says "either side may attack the Tholians", but this refers to the Alliance or Coalition, since the General War campaign is set up strictly as a two sided scenario, and never should you have more than two sides (which is essentially what happens if you allow the Roms to attack Tholians without joining the Coalition). Now, if the Roms attack the Feds (joining the Coalition in the process), they may now also attack the Tholians.
8: Rule (706.1) lists specific Gorn construction turn by turn, so use that. If the Gorn are at war, they could of course use subs/conversions.
9: I would say they continue under limited war (specific scenario rule), since (603.5) has no rule allowing the Gorn to go to war like (603.64) for the Feds.
Chris Fant: As I noted above, this should not be permitted for this reason, the General war has no provisions for more than two sides (alliance/coalition).
Chris Fant: limited war. You are correct, limited war lets you enter allied territory, but not enemy territory.
Hugh Bishop: CL Scenario. The Fed borders are (historically) a result of a Federation Declaration in the early years period. I don't think the Organians had anything to do with them.
David Slater: escort conversions.
1. Carrier War allowed unlimited conversions ONLY FOR CEDS REPLACEMENTS LOST IN COMBAT (done in the retrograde step), and you had the one normal conversion per starbase (production step) as well. This was recently changed in that CEDS escort conversions (done to replace losses in the retrograde step) are now limited, each starbase doing 3 pts worth, and the capital/shipyard starbase doing 5), but you still get the one per starbase in the production step.
2. Yes, you can do one per starbase in the production step. You can do multiple escorts at one starbase in the production step as (carrier group without carrier), but only for specific groups allowed in your production schedule.
3. I mentioned this in #1 above.
4. You can also sub 3 escorts per turn above and beyond the listed allowed production. See rule (515.53), middle of third paragraph.
Todd E Jahnke: EP movements. See (435.22) the last sentence. You can only make one round trip (so after returning to the first capital you must stop), and you cannot change missions without returning to the sending capital. Also each tug can only do one mission per turn.
I think that is everything, so if I missed something, speak up.
Nick
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 10:57 pm: Edit
Nick, on Single combat for fighting retreat, 318.74 lists a -1 modifier for ships in a fighting retreat
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 09:13 am: Edit
Nick, sorry but the rules clearly allow you to enter enemy territory just not to remain their. Heck the example of limited war even has 2 people attacking into each others territory and retrograding out,resulting in "lots of combat decorations and battlefield promotions"
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 12:03 pm: Edit
Tim, ah, thanks. I missed that one, so you would use small scale combat, but still retreat again after the round of fighting retreat combat.
Edward, what example is that? If it is the last paragraph of (652.25), note that that example specifically says "two races in a FREE CAMPAIGN", and the General War is not the free campaign.
Rules (602.4), (603.5), and (603.6) govern limited war in the General War campaign, and they allow the "limited war" race to enter allied territory, but do not let that race enter enemy territory.
I believe that is how it works, but let me e-mail Jeff to make sure I am right, as I am not positive.
Nick
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 12:21 pm: Edit
It makes no sense at all for a race at limited war to be able to enter enemy territory.
If they can do that, they why would everyone drop to limited war at the very start and delay exhaustion?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 12:27 pm: Edit
Chris, I think so too, but I have e-mailed Jeff for clarification.
I also asked him about the possability of a Rom turn 10 attack on the tholians (independently of joining the coalition/attacking Feds).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 02:05 pm: Edit
Sorry Nick, wrong place to go on a tirade
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 04:24 pm: Edit
HDWs in Winds of Fire
Are non-POG/COG HDWs in WoF assigned missions at start? IOW HDWs must be assigned some mission -- correct? Or is there a vanilla mission (no mission assigned) for HDWs?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 08:02 pm: Edit
Question on small scale, or single combat. Say I have 6 ships in a hex versus three enemy ships. Can I use small scale combat if I only use three of my six ships, and if the COMPOT on both sides is under the requirement. Or would I be forced to use regular combat since I have more than 3 ships? Also, extend that thought to single combat. Say I have 3 ships in a hex versus one enemy ship. Can I withhold two of my ships as unchosen flagships, and perform single combat? Thanks!
By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 12:00 am: Edit
Please define the build costs of each of the HDW configurations.
Thanks
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 06:18 pm: Edit
I'm a little confused about overbuilds (431.3) with regard to variants.
what is confusing me is the refrences to conversion-during-construction (431.34)
Are you forced to use this method if overbuilding a variant or can you produce a variant by direct prodction (and would it be classified as a sub since this is above your production limits?)
By Jeremy Zschau (Kieran) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 10:36 pm: Edit
Kzinti CV question.
OK, I've looked all over my rules, but I can't find a listed reason for this. Why is the Kzinti CV's base hull the BCH, when the BCH is not available until, IIRC, Y177? Or is it a reverse situation, where the base hull is actually a derivation of the carrier, not the other way around as is the normal situation?
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 11:13 pm: Edit
You got it right, Jeremy - the Kzinti BCH is derived from the CV design (which was purpose built as a carrier long before the BCH design was ever thought up).
Sorry, Nick, for butting in, but I figured I'd give a quick answer.
By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 11:36 pm: Edit
(And the CV seen in F&E is actually the CVS of SFB.)
By Jeremy Zschau (Kieran) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 01:08 am: Edit
Thanks, Kevin. That was what I had thought, somewhat, but I wasn't sure because if it was right, then it was one of the definite exceptions to the 'you have to have the base hull before you can build variants' rule. Of course, in this case, I suppose the carrier itself would be the 'base hull.'
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 10:01 am: Edit
Chuck, I would say go with what was done at Origins, the HDWs can be given missions when the race sets up (starting COGs/POGs, etc are defined), unless that was unbalancing? Tell me, how did it work? And you are correct, there is no "vanilla" mission, they must have one of the defined missions.
Peter Riewe and Robert Padilla, my apologies, I have to take back something I said above about small scale combat (I said it is determined after battleforce determination), after reviewing the rules when I am not dead tired, it is actually determined at the start of that battle hex resolution, not after battleforce determination. Rule (310.0) says the limit is number of ships in a hex, not battleforce, and rule (318.71) and (318.72) doesn't specifically say, but it is talking about your total force, not just your battleforce. Small scale combat is decided based on the number of units in the battle hex, if under the limits, these units are combined into a single group, and you do one round of single combat. If the total units are over the limits, then you must use standard combat. In other words, it is not possible to do small combat and leave some units out of the battleforce in the reserves. If you are using small combat, all ships are combined into one group, you do one round of combat, and there is no reserve. In your example, you have too many ships to use small combat.
Grant, base cost for HDWs (most of them, I didn't check every race) is 5+1. This is what it costs to build a mission K (combat) variant, since rule (525.211) says if you build any variant except K, you also pay the conversion cost.
Now, to build some other variant, you pay the base build cost, plus the reconfiguration cost as stated in (525.211). So, to build from scratch, say a HDW mission G (commando), you pay a build cost of 5(ship)+1(fighter)+1(configuration)=7 EPs, since all reconfigurations cost one EP except where noted. So simply, just add the base cost (5+1 EPs) and the reconfiguration cost (usually 1 EP).
Tim Losberg, see rule (431.8), it discusses subbing for an overbuilt ship. You can do so, but it counts against any allowed overbuilds, and the resulting ship must be allowed to be overbuilt. If you have already used all your allowed subs, but have conversion capacity, then you can use (431.34) to do conversion-during-construction to get a varaint. Make sense?
Jeremy, it is a weird situation, technically (according to the SIT), the BCH is the base hull, with the CV, BCV, and BCS being variants). In this case however, the CV was built way before any of the others. As another example, the Hydran DWE was built (historically) before any hydran combat DWs (base hull) were built, although these have the same Year In Service dates.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 12:02 pm: Edit
re : Limited war
This discussion was just brought to my attention.
This question came up when I was FEAR. The interpretation that you could attack someone, then retrograde to avoid being at war is INCORRECT.
Your status is determined during the Economic phase. Hence, you cannot enter the territory of a race you are not at war with. If you declare war on them, then you can enter, but even if you retrograde, you are still at war with them for the remainder of the turn.
Joe
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 01:11 pm: Edit
That is my understanding as well Joe, at least for the general war and other published scenarios.
Of course, the free campaign rules have that example of two races attacking each other every turn but staying at limited war. Still waiting to hear what Jeff says about that, whether it applies only to free campaign style games, or if it is incorrect, or what...
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 03:02 am: Edit
Joe,
I have your old rulings. Based on the question files that you generated, several sections were added to the F&E2K rules.
(652.25) Last paragraph was added and specifically allows a race to declare Limited War, invade, and retrograde out.
Further, (651.1) states "The Economic Level (652.2) and Economic Exhaustion (652.3) rules from the Free Campaign are to be used in the Grand Campaign."
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 09:31 am: Edit
Jeff,
That last paragraph refers SPECIFICALLY to the Free Campaign. Most of the other rules do not. I submit that the specific reference is, in fact, a specific exception.
At the very least, I hope that in the game in question, the Roms only received 75% of their income. If they got the full 100%, then guess what? They are difinitely at war, regardless.
Joe
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 12:48 pm: Edit
Joe,
To answer your second question, the Romulan wanted to be at 75% to delay the onset of economic exhuastion.
= = = = = =
Yes, the paragraph refers to the Free Campaign. But it also amplifies (652.25) "A race cannot operate its economy at Limited War if it has ships in enemy territory...".
I will also point out "If enemy ships enter your territory and retrograde out, you may but are not required to move to full wartime economy." Which directly overrides your other ruling on ships in enemy territory.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 01:21 pm: Edit
Nick, Jeff, Joe
I need a clarification of (410.4). It says that units stacked with a "friendly" base or planet are in supply regardless of whether or not there is a supply path. What does friendly mean in this context? Does it mean that Lyran ships on a Klingon SB that is completly cut off from the Lyran grid are automatically in supply, without needing to be paid for as expeditionary or homeless?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 01:40 pm: Edit
Ok, so the ruling is that a race at limited war can attack the enemy, as long as they retro their ships out at the end of the turn?
What happens if a races ships get stuck in enemy territory?
Does this mean that the Feds can invade Klingon space if on Limited War?
I'd really like to request tht SVC get a look at this before anything continues. It just doesn't make sense that a race could do that in the General War.
By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 03:04 pm: Edit
I second the request.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 03:24 pm: Edit
Steve, please look at this.
The Feds have four special rules for Limited War:
(601.12) and (602.4) for helping the Kzinti
(602.48) for helping the Tholians
(603.6) for helping the Gorn.
The Gorns have a special rule for helping the Feds (603.5).
These special rules apply to the "non-agressive" races, who are less likely to invade in the first place. These 5 rules allow the race on Limited War to only enter allied territory.
My understanding of the general rules is that the Lyrans could declare Limited War on Turn 1, attack the Kzinti, and retrograde everything back. During the Economics phase of Turn 1, they do not have ships in enemy territory. During the economics phase of Turn 2, they also do not have ships in enemy territory. At no point have they operated their economy while having ships in enemy territory (652.25).
=====
John Smedley,
see the reference to (410.54) for bases in allied territory. The base is in supply, but it cannot provide supplies to any Lyran ships.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 03:37 pm: Edit
"I will also point out "If enemy ships enter your territory and retrograde out, you may but are not required to move to full wartime economy." Which directly overrides your other ruling on ships in enemy territory. "
Jeff,
There is a huge difference between your opponent sending ships into your territory, and you sending ships into your opponents territory. One is voluntary, the other is not (from one's own perspective).
Joe
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 03:41 pm: Edit
I will have to look at this LATER when I get to the end of the list posted above, but rest assured that the feds cannot enter Klingon space as part of any hokey limited war gimmick.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 03:58 pm: Edit
Jeff
Thank you, but I do not feel that rule applies to the situtation I am describing.
I'll use an example to make it clear:
Situtation:
The Klingon and Lyran grids have been seperated by alliance ships in the Klingon-Lyran NZ.
30 Lyran ships are on the Klingon capital. By (410.4), it seems that the Lyrans are in supply, since they are stacked with a "friendly" base, even though they have no supply path to any Lyran grid.
410.54 (which you referenced) seems to apply to the case where the base is not in the race's origional home territory. In this case, 1411 is clearly "in" Klingon territory, and is "friendly" to the Lyrans...so the Lyrans are in supply?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 04:22 pm: Edit
John,
Any time your ships cannot draw supplies from your own supply grid, you must be either
a) homeless
b) an expiditionary unit
c) out of supply.
The reference Jeff made did not apply in this case; it restricts a base which is its own partial supply grid from supplying allied ships that would not otherwise be in supply (homeless or expeditionary), but uses the same logic as above.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 04:33 pm: Edit
Joe
That is how I think it should work, but 410.4 specifically says "friendly" base or planet, not "own race's" base or planet. Under what conditions does the "friendly" clause come into play?
Thank you for clearing that up - I'm glad we've been doing it correctly.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 05:20 pm: Edit
John,
Read (410.51) and (410.511) and (411.7)
The clause friendly would apply to captured planets, for instance. Note that there is a distinction between "friendly" and "allied" in the rules.
Joe
By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 05:35 pm: Edit
Personally, I've always read the rules as permitting a race on limited war to enter enemy space and retrograde out. If anything gets trapped there, the race would have to go to full war on the next turn.
To put it another way, limited war allows skirmishing with the enemy. Once you start trying to actually take control of territory it's serious and you have to go to full war.
By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 06:11 pm: Edit
I think this debate would best be moved to General Discussions, so that Nick's area is not cluttered.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 09:54 pm: Edit
Noooo!!!! My area!!!!! Clutter.... Everywhere...
Oh, the humanity.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 10:41 am: Edit
In a similar vein, what happens to salvage generated by a homeless vessel? Does the supporting race gain the salvage? Does the salvage mystically return to the owners grid?
In the specific example, The Hydrans(who were kicked off map), have had an adopted ship in Fed territory destroyed. What salvage is generated?
By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 11:04 am: Edit
Steve says I should clutter here! So, I throw this into the ongoing debate about the Rom turn 10 attack on the Tholians.
Okay, so again, I pose the question...
Where is authorization for the Romulans to attack the Tholians in Scenario (603.0)? I've looked at the scenario several times, and I do not see it.
If the Roms aren't authorized to attack the Tholians, then the limited war/war thing may well be moot (although I still agree with the interpretation that you cannot attack unless at war).
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 11:13 am: Edit
Without having studied it, I can tell you that the entire concept of limited war is that you can send ships to help an ally, you cannot attack anyone.
By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 11:17 am: Edit
Yup.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 11:22 am: Edit
Pete,
603.16 (Scenario Notes)
"The coalition may attack the Tholians if it has not done so in the previous scenario"
603.2 (Scenario Schedule)
"Either side may attack the Tholians. See (503.3)"
603.16 presupposes that the Roms have attacked the Federation, however 603.2 seems to be a pretty blanket statement that would allow anyone to attack the Tholians.
By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 11:29 am: Edit
nah
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 11:54 am: Edit
I don't see an argument to support nah.
If the Romulans form a "third side" (which would make the game very odd, this system seems to breakdown a little with more then 2 sides) then any blanket rule that applies to both the coalition and the alliance (such as 603.2) should certainly be applied to the "Romulan side".
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 11:56 am: Edit
They cannot form a third side in a historical GW game. THey either invade the Federation, or they sit out the war.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 12:06 pm: Edit
No they can invade the Gorn (turn 12) or just put off attacking the alliance.
Games are about choices (Especially strategic games), you need to put more options and choices in the game not take them out.
Funny thing 603.5 (gorn limtied war) seems to indicate that the Roms could have attacked the Gorn on turn 10 but I see no support for this anyplace else in the scenario. The quote from 603.5 is "If the Romulans have not attacked the Federation or the Gorn ..."
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 12:15 pm: Edit
Well, the word "either" in the rule means 1 of 2. So, the wording implies only 2 sides have this option (presumably the Alliance & Coalition - since those are the only 2 sides most rules are written for).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 12:15 pm: Edit
A third side in the General war doesn't work. But, there is the enabling rule to attack the Gorn turn 12, there is nothing that would allow the Romulans to attack the Tholians with out also attacking the Feds.
In any case, they would have to remain on their wartime economy per SVC.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 12:18 pm: Edit
As far as this limited war argument is going, the example clearly states that two races at limited war could attack into each others territory and retrograde out thus maintaining a limited war status. With all those decorations and field promotions. I fail to see that this is a very game breaking tactic for the Romulans to pursue, they lose a few EP's now and gain a few more EP's later. The time value of those EP's makes this a break even proposition at best.
The Federation actually makes out rather well if the Romulans are pursuing this strategy, the Romulans are not occupying Federation territory, not capturing planets and generally being much less of a nuisance then normal. If this was a game breaker I could understand that the rules would need to be changed but its pretty close to irrelevant.
The F&E rules make a distinction between economic level and political status, its possible to be at limited war economically and still be at war politically. It is even possible to be at war economically and remain at limited war politically. (see 603.6) As the Federation is certainly at a full wartime economy on turn 10 but it could be restricted from attacking the Romulans if they choose to attack the Gorn instead of the Federation.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 12:19 pm: Edit
Yeah, but SVC said so.
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 01:51 pm: Edit
Am I missing something here? What exactly is the point of the Roms attacking the Tholians in a limited war scenario? I don’t see the strategic/tactical advantage of doing so. Asking the question just for argument’s sake seems like a lot of hassle for little reason.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 02:13 pm: Edit
Well the point is the Romulans want to be at limited war for 3 turns before they start actively fighting, thus delaying economic exhaustion. Now its virtually impossible to do if you are at war with the Feds, all they need to do is get 1 ship into Romulan territory and not in a fight or have a fleet get 2 or 3 hexes into Romulan territory so that all but 1 retrograde out thus forcing the Romulans to go to a full war economy.
Now someone I think claimed that the Romulans had to be at war with another power or something so the Romulans now want to attack the Tholians instead of the Federation so the Roms can do the limited war gimmick. Which has in turn generated a "lively debate" about the permisability of limited war.
There are essentially 2 questions
#1 Can the Romulans attack the Tholians w/o also at least declaring war on the Federation.
#2 Can a race operating politically at a war time level but operating a limited war economy enter other races territory?
btw: The answer here would also mean that if the Klingons attacked the Federation on turn 7 the Federation could not enter Klingon space on turn 7 b/c the federation is at a limited war economy on turn 7. This idea is very strange, it makes no sense whatsoever that the Federation could not launch a counterattack into Klingon space on turn 7. I will allow that on turn 7 the Feds have little hope of doing anything significant but if they can blow up an undefended BATS or two it could prove useful in the long run. And they should certainly be allowed to try.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 02:16 pm: Edit
John
The merits of the tactic were discussed in my game (Return of the Cruiser).
The tactic could be useful if the Romulans can join the Klingons in an attack on the Tholians without going to war with the Federation, thus preventing a Federation counterattack on Romulan territory. Jeff ruled that this was not possible, since in his view the Romulans are not members of the Coalition until they declare war on the Feds (the rules say that the "Coalition" can attack the Tholians, but do not explicitly say thet the Romulans can independently). Even with this ruling, there are unresolved issues; for example, the Gorns go to war and the 6th fleet is released only if the Romulans enter Fed territory or adjacent neutral zones. It seems that the Romulans could declare war on the Feds but never enter Fed territory (or adjcent NZs) - instead attacking the Tholians. In this case the Gorns are stuck at limited war until turn 20 (when scenario 604 takes over), and the 6th fleet stays unreleased until then.
As an aside, I noted that the rules seem to support the Romulans being able to do this without running their economy on wartime footing (as long as they end each turn with all Romulan ships in Romulan or Klingon territory). This makes the tactic even more attractive, as the Romulans can stave off exaustion for a few extra turns.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 02:18 pm: Edit
"If the Romulans form a "third side" (which would make the game very odd, this system seems to breakdown a little with more then 2 sides) then any blanket rule that applies to both the coalition and the alliance (such as 603.2) should certainly be applied to the "Romulan side"
Ed,
Either is different than ANY. Either clearly refers to the two primary sides, the Alliance and the Coalition
The distinction between the words is not by accident.
"But, there is the enabling rule to attack the Gorn turn 12"
Exactly.
Ed, note the specific exception. There would be no need for a specific exception if the Roms were free to do what they will. Again, this is not an accident.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 02:21 pm: Edit
"As the Federation is certainly at a full wartime economy on turn 10 but it could be restricted from attacking the Romulans if they choose to attack the Gorn instead of the Federation.
"
Beause they are at war with the Klingons. You are inferring the wrong things by looking at a small piece and not looking at the whole picture.
Joe
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 02:21 pm: Edit
Roms on Limited War sending ships into Tholian space could only happen if the Roms were defending the Tholians from somebody else.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 02:24 pm: Edit
"The answer here would also mean that if the Klingons attacked the Federation on turn 7 the Federation could not enter Klingon space on turn 7 b/c the federation is at a limited war economy on turn 7"
No it wouldn't. The Fed economic ramp up is a specific exception in the rules, which is covered in detail. They are still AT WAR with the Klingons, even though their economy has not spun up to full production.
Joe
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 04:03 pm: Edit
Would a Kzinti Exp. Fleet between Turns 7 and 9 in Fed space be immediately interned in Fed space if the supply line to Kzinti space was cut, or do they get a chance to get back into Kzinti space first? Also, if a Kzinti Exp. Fleet gets interrned in Fed space, can those ships still fight if the hex they occupy is attacked, and would the be considered to be out of supply? Thanks!
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 10:14 pm: Edit
Question #1
Restrictions on Limited War
All of the rules in the scenarios for Limited War involve the Federation:
Feds assisting the Kzintis (601.12) and (602.4)
Feds assisting the Tholians (602.48)
Feds assisting the Gorns (603.6)
Gorns assisting the Feds (603.5)
In all of these scenario rules, the Limited War race is only allowed to enter the territory of the ally.
(651.1) states that the Economic rules (652.2) are to be used in the Grand Campaign.
(652.25) does not say that a race has to be at full war to move ships into enemy territory, only that it cannot operate its economy at less than Full War if they have ships in enemy territory. If the race declares Limited War, moves ships into enemy territory and retrogrades out, it still does not have ships in enemy territory on the following Economic Phase. This is expanded on in the last paragraph of (652.25), which was added in F&E2K in response to players’ questions.
(314.35) in AO allows the Klingons to Raid the Federation when the Feds are on Limited War under (602.4).
The scenario rules do take precedence, and do not allow the Federation to attack the Klingons or Romulans while the Feds are on Limited War. However, as (652.25) reads, the Lyrans, Klingons, Hydrans, Romulans, and Kzinti (if the Lyrans don’t have any ships in Kzinti space on Alliance Turn 1) could use Limited War to attack their enemy and retrograde back out.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 10:20 pm: Edit
Question #2
Romulans attacking the Tholians:
(602.52) and (602.48) The Klingons can attack the Tholians without attacking the Federation. The Federation then can assist the Tholians (602.48).
(603.6) The Romulans can attack the Gorns without attacking the Federation. The Federation then can assist the Gorns (603.6). (See there are already rules for more than “two sides”.)
(603.2) The Coalition (Romulans and Klingons) can attack the Tholians while the Romulans attack the Federation. The Tholians then join the Alliance (503.31).
While not in blach and white, by logical progression, the Romulans should be able to attack the Tholians without attacking the Federation. If both the Romulans and the Klingons attack the Tholians, the Romulans have joined the war, and by default can be attacked by the Federation. If the Klingons don’t attack with the Romulans, the Federation should be able to assist the Tholians under the conditions of (602.48).
Consider that on the first turn, the Romulans will have only the Patrol Detachment (23 ships), plus 1 ship built at 3518, able to attack. Since the closest SB is not in the deployment area of the Detachment, the highest command rating is on the WE’s. Against this, the Tholians have 44 ships, including 3 DNs. On the second turn of attack, ships from Home Fleet (which have moved by strategic move the 12 intervening hexes) and new builds will be available.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 12:01 am: Edit
"(652.25) does not say that a race has to be at full war to move ships into enemy territory, only that it cannot operate its economy at less than Full War if they have ships in enemy territory. "
Jeff,
can you see that moving a ship into enemy territory while not at Full war would violate the bolded text?
If you move ships nito enemy territory, and you aren't at full war, your economic status violates (652.25). Since economic and political status is determined during economics, by extention you cannot move ships into enemy territory if you are not at war.
Joe
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 12:10 am: Edit
"However, as (652.25) reads, the Lyrans, Klingons, Hydrans, Romulans, and Kzinti (if the Lyrans don’t have any ships in Kzinti space on Alliance Turn 1) could use Limited War to attack their enemy and retrograde back out.
"
Again, the cited rule specifically calls out the Free Campaign. As the whole section refers to the Free Campaign, I submit that this specific reference is intentional.... it provides, in effect a specific exception to the reference that 652 applies in the scenario rules.
Coupled with SVC's comment that you cannot attack someone while at Limited War, I feel strongly that I am correct. SVC is the only one who can tell us what he intended with the Limited War rules, and he has already done so.
Joe
By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 05:55 am: Edit
The only way the Romulans can attack the Tholians is if they are part of the Coalition. The rules clearly state that the Coalition, not the Romulans, can attack the Tholians.
The Romulans can form a "third side" and attack the Gorns, and this is specifically stipulated in the scenario. They cannot do so with the Tholians. The scenario doesn't authorize it.
And this is because the scenarios reflect the political history. The Romulans have no beef with the Tholians, and would only attack if the Klingons insisted on it (which is what happened historically).
Now, the Roms could attack the Tholians on turn 10 if they are part of the Coalition, even if they don't attack the Feds, but that would mean that the Feds could attack the Roms on turn 10 because the Roms are now part of the Coalition.
In either case, you cannot enter enemy territory unless you are at war. Economic status is persistent throughout the turn. If you move into enemy territory during that turn, you are now operating in enemy territory, if only for a portion of the turn. This is not possible unless you are at wartime economy.
By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 05:59 am: Edit
(652.25) allows you to remain at Limited War if you are the race that was attacked and if the attacker then withdrew.
The race that does the attacking still has to be at war.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 09:30 am: Edit
That's the best descritption I have heard yet Pete.
Nothing else makes any sense.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 10:59 am: Edit
It seems that Jeff is saying that enonomic status is determined during the economics phase, and does not change until the following economics phase, regardless of what occurs in the intervening turn. This is how the rules read to me as well, and is how the rules work in other instances (for example, supply is evaluated at specific points, and a unit is only out of supply if it is out of supply at these phases - it does not matter what happens in between).
Pete: 652.52 specifically says that both sides could remain at limited war and still attack, as long as they retograded completly out of enemy territory. You may be able to argue that this applies only to a free campaign (although Jeff ruled otherwise)
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 10:59 am: Edit
Nick/Jeff
On the Romulans & Klingons attacking the Tholians (after the Romulans declared war on the Feds and assuming the Romulans DO NOT enter Federation space or adjacent Neutral Zones.):
1. When is the Fed 6th fleet activated?
2. When do the Gorns enter the war?
3. When can the Gorns go to full war status and invade the Romulans?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 11:18 am: Edit
"Pete: 652.52 specifically says that both sides could remain at limited war and still attack, as long as they retograded completly out of enemy territory. You may be able to argue that this applies only to a free campaign (although Jeff ruled otherwise) "
It says right in the rule "IN THE FREE CAMPAIGN".
As far as what Jeff said, for the Umpteenth and thirtieth time, SVC has already said that the intent of limited war is NOT to let you attack someone else.
SVC trumps Jeff and everyone else, whether or not we like it or agree/disagree. I am unclear what portion of this escapes you.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 11:25 am: Edit
Now for a non-Tholian/Romulan question...
The general production notes says there is a limit of 1 set of tug pods per turn. Is that 1 per type (ie, 1 battle tugs worth, 1 carrier tugs worth, 1 troop tougs worth,...) or 1 total?
If 1 total, can you build 1 set for a tug, and 1 set for a LTT?
If 1 per type (battle, carrier, troop, ...), could the Lyrans build 1 set of VP+ and 1 set of K-VP?
Thanks,
Tony
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 12:04 pm: Edit
Tony forgot the mismatched pods for Pod Construction.
With the Klingon/Kzinti/Lyran K-Pods.
Since I destroyed a Z-BTV in our game....
To replace the VP Pod and BP Pod, can he do that on 1 turn, or does it take 2 turns?
IE:
Turn 1: 1 BP Pod built
Turn 2: 1 VP Pod built
or just for the Z-K-L's, they can build any 2 K-style pods for one "tug"
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 12:31 pm: Edit
Tony,
1 set.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 01:22 pm: Edit
(701.0) in AO clarifies that Klingon, Kzinti and Lyran K-pods that come in pairs can built as a pair. A BP/VP isn't a "pair."
(There's a tacnote in here somewhere ).
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 01:26 pm: Edit
John Smedley,
If the Romulans and Klingons attack the Tholians on Turn 10, the Romulans have joined the war full force. The Federation 6th Fleet is released, and the Gorn will enter on schedule.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 01:28 pm: Edit
I would suggest that Steve has received sufficient rules references to make his decision regarding the two points of contention above.
If anyone's question hasn't been answered, please point it out. I apologize for contributing to the general clutter.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 01:35 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
THere's a tacnote in here somewhere
________________________________________
Yeah, like,
Good Luck for a Year.
Scott Tenhoff
If you are lucky enough to destroy a Battle-Carrier Tug. It will take an entire year to replace it.
Since Tugs are once a year builds, and each seperate pod-type takes 6 months to build. It will take 1 year to replace a BTV's pods.
Whereas if you destroy a normal Carrier, it can be replaced in 6 months.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 02:32 pm: Edit
I know this has been asked in the past but I am having a hard time finding the post.
How are bases that are not part of a deployment area released? Particularly the 3 klingon bases along the Lyran NZ (0908, 1009, 1011) and the 4 klingon non boarder bats (1209, 1618, 1918, 2218).
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 01:58 pm: Edit
Another "I keep forgetting to bring my rules to work" question...
The Kzinti have 2xFF, 2x3CVL in a hex. Both 3CVL are crippled.
The Coaltion attacks with a full battle line. The Kzinti (through proper battle line manipulation) end up with 1xFF in their battle force. The Coalition does (say) 30 damage. The FF dies for 6 damage.
Does the Coalition get to carry the other 24 damage into the pursuit battle?
I know there is a limit of 7 minus points in pursuit, but is there a limit on plus points?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 02:26 pm: Edit
Repost that got lost in the clutter:
Would a Kzinti Exp. Fleet between Turns 7 and 9 in Fed space be immediately interned in Fed space if the supply line to Kzinti space was cut, or do they get a chance to get back into Kzinti space first? Also, if a Kzinti Exp. Fleet gets interrned in Fed space, can those ships still fight if the hex they occupy is attacked, and would the be considered to be out of supply? Thanks!
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 02:56 pm: Edit
Another repost that was lost in the clutter:
In a similar vein, what happens to salvage generated by a homeless vessel? Does the supporting race gain the salvage? Does the salvage mystically return to the owners grid?
In the specific example, The Hydrans(who were kicked off map), have had an adopted ship in Fed territory destroyed. What salvage is generated?
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 03:04 pm: Edit
I looked through the rules on a slow unit retreat the other night and could not find any exception for the ability to pursue a slow unit retreat.
In the specific example a Klingon SAV is attempting to retreat from a Kzinti battle force. The battle was fought for about 5 rounds, and the Kzin only had 3 healthy units available for pursuit. This appears to mean that the Kzin needed to roll a 2 or less(no AO) in order to pursue(In a regular retreat i think this makes sense). The Kzin was planning to pursue only the SAV, and to add insult to injury the SAV was crippled and 3 healthy Kzin ships were unable to pursue a crippled SAV 2/3 of the time.
This does not make sense to me, and while it appears to be correct in the rules, I am not sure that this situation was ever thought of when the game designer considered the slow retreat rules. I think it would make sense for there to be a bonus for the pursuit roll of a slow unit, and even a further bonus if that unit is crippled(I would think +1 at least for each would make sense).
Nick- please let me know if I have overlooked a rule that I can not find in the slow retreat section, or if I am correct please bump this up the line to see if this could be considered as errata.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 09:18 am: Edit
Bill, for slow combat, check the overall sequence of events in (302.742), A) first you form a legal battleforce (can be full size, not limited to six ships), then from that battleforce, pick ships (up to six) to try (via the die roll) to pursue the normal retreating ships. The ships that are staying to fight the retreating slow units in B) never make a die roll to pursue, the die roll is only for units pursuing normal retreating ships.
So if you have three ships assigned to your A) battleforce, and don't send any to pursue normal retreating ships, then those three ships under B) get to fight in the slow unit battle, and there is no die roll, and no normal pursuit battle.
The die roll takes place in the second half of A), and only if you are also attempting normal pursuit in addition to the slow battle. The slow battle requires no die roll at all, as you WILL catch them.
I need to look a bit at the other two questions above, sorry I missed them.
Nick
By David Johnson (Djj) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 10:30 am: Edit
How many rounds of slow battle "pursuit" are permitted? Can the pursuit force attack all slow units involved in the pursuit? In other words, if there are only five FTSs in the battle, can the slow unit player claim that command ratings limit him to only one FTS in the battle force allowing the others to get away?
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:24 pm: Edit
Just to make sure Robert's question is clear. The fleet in question is sitting on a Fed planet with a supply line to Earth, but not to Kzintai.
William
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 09:34 am: Edit
Robert Padilla, I had ruled on this recently (or on a similar question). I said that the Kzinti expeditionary fleet can keep operating (with Fed "homeless" supply status if they pay that), but the Kzinti can't create another expeditionary fleet (without the first getting interned), and must keep paying for the first expeditionary fleet (in case the supply lines to Kzinti space reopen). It is a weird case that likely exists for a turn or two.
Tim Losberg, those bases are either released when the race's home fleet is released, or released when the race goes to war, I can't remember which (or even if it has been ruled on), so let me do some digging and see if I can find it. I have to do work on the master errata anyway to add some items and to separate into a special section the stuff that got updated in combined ops...
Tony Barnes, there is no limit on plus points.
Bill Schoeller, rule (439.13) specifically says no salvage for homeless/expeditionary ships.
David Johnson, there is only one round of the slow battle, (like there is only one pursuit round), and all slow units are involved, if there are more slow units than can be commanded, the excess (owner's choice) are still included but generate no compot, just like in normal pursuit when there are too many cripples to command.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 03:34 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 09:21 am: Edit
Nick,
Thanks for the response, but I was asking a bit of a different question, though just worded badly perhaps. I want to know what happens if either the Feds or the Zin stop paying for the fleet? It becomes interned immediately? Do they get a chance to leave Fed space? If the hex they are in is attacked and if they are interrned, can they fight?
Thanks!
By John Robinson (John_R) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 02:27 pm: Edit
Can the Kzinti sub MECs for the 2 CMs on their Spring 169 (Turn 2) build schedule? The SIT says it is available then, but the first MEC is not on the schedule until Fall 169 (Turn 3).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 08:21 pm: Edit
Robert: Now that I look over things more completely, I don't think any kzinti ships are interned in Fed space during this scenario, since rule (602.42) (which only counts in Fed limited war) specifically says interned kzinti ships are released, and if they are released under the Fed limited war rules, it makes sense they would also be released under the normal situation with the Feds going to full war status.
So, if the expeditionary fleet is not paid for, it doesn't make sense to me that it would be interned, so they could still fight (although they may or may not be in supply depending on other factors, expeditionary status, homeless status, proximity to Kzinti bases, etc...).
Now, the other question is, if they are no longer an expeditionary fleet (either because the Kzinti stopped paying, or because the Coalition cut the supply path back to Kzinti space), must they leave fed space? Rule (602.12) says no ships may ENTER, except an EP xfer tug, or expeditionary ships. It says nothing about not being able to operate there, or the ability to just hang around after you have entered, just a restriction on entry. Now, strictly speaking, this SEEMS to allow an expeditionary fleet to enter Fed space, have the Kzinti retract that expeditionary status, create a new expeditionary fleet to send to Fed space, and repeat to get as many kzinti ships into fed space as you want.
This is of course balony, as the point of the rule is to limit the number of kzinti ships in fed space, since they are more worried about protecting their own territory than in protecting Fed territory. On the other hand, it is also very messy to write a rule requiring non-expeditionary kzinti ships to leave fed space. How soon must they leave? How fast? Can they fight enemies on the way? Can they take any route, or must it be a specific route/quickest route? What if that specific route is covered by Coalition ships and obviously a suicide path? Etc...
So, the solution I see is to say that:
1) As per (602.12), only expeditionary ships may enter Fed space.
2) (new rule/clarification) The total number of Kzinti ships/units in Fed space (during this scenario), whether they are expeditionary, homeless, normal, or normally drawing supply from Kzinti bases/planets across the Fed/Kzinti neutral zone, cannot exceed the maximum size of an expeditionary fleet, as per the expeditionary rule (411.72).
So, during this scenario, this limits the numbers of Kzinti ships in fed space, you have to be expeditionary (paid for as such by Kzinti) to enter as per (602.12), any ships that were previously interned in fed space are released as per (602.42) which to me would seem to count for this purpose in both limited war and full war situations, and any released ships can stay and fight there but will count against the limits of any further expeditionary fleet that enteres (sort of like counting as part of the exp fleet, even if they are not actually paid to become part of it).
Does this solve all the problems, and make sense?
By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 08:29 pm: Edit
So the rule changed to disallow a tug getting EPs (or, lets be complete, delivering them)?
The Kzinti can make the ships expeditionary, send them in and then drop that status so they don't have to pay for them any more?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 08:31 pm: Edit
John, MECs can be built from spring Y169, as per normal rules for building carrier escorts. So yes, you can sub two of them for CMs on turn 2.
By David Lang (Dlang) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 08:33 pm: Edit
Nick, wouldn't it be easier to simply say that a expeditionary fleet that looses it's expeditionary status isn't forced to leave fed space, but wouldn't be supplied so the ships would be of very limited use.
in the general situation you can send ships into fed space that aren't part of an expeditionary fleet, but unless they are supplied directly by kzinti bases only the expeditionary fleet can be supplied
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 08:44 pm: Edit
David Kass, huh? Of course you can still deliver/pick up EPs with a tug. I never meant that to change. On the second thing, good point, they should be paying. Let's see, let's see, let's see...
Say that the Kzinti have to pay for them as well, since that would seem to me to be part of the intention of the rule. So at the start of turn 7, if any previously interned ships are in fed space, they get released, and the Kzinti have to pay the expeditionary cost for them. If you allow them to not pay, (under promise to bring the ships back home), how do you enforce bringing the ships back? At the start of any turn of this scenario, the Kzinti must pay the expeditionary cost for any kzinti ships in Fed space. A kzinti ship cannot enter Fed space unless it is an expeditionary ships, and any Kzin ships in fed space count against the expeditionary limit regardless of their actual supply status.
At the production step, if there are no kzinti ships in Fed space, they you don't have to pay the expeditionary cost, and if you paid for no expeditonary ships, no ships would be able to enter.
Now, the expeditionary supplies may or not get through depending on local conditions (ion storms, asteroid fields, hordes of drooling marauding coalition ships), but you still must pay (in case the supply lines open again mid-turn). In the meantime, kzinti ships cut off in fed space could be homeless supplied by the feds, or not, but would still count (in this scenario) against the overall limits of the Kzinti expeditionary force, right?
Now, all that, with the above post, does that work? Can anybody else break it?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 08:46 pm: Edit
David Lang, that is what I am saying, but if the expeditionary supplies don't get through, the Feds can adopt them. This was a previous quesiton.
So then, if the Feds adopt them, can you keep sending more expeditionary ships? Of course not, since the point is to limit the number of such ships. So my point is, the Kzinti must keep paying the expeditiary cost, any kzinti ships in fed space count against the maximum limit of a kzinti expeditionary force, and said ships may be supplied by exp. supplies, by homeless supplies from the fed, or may be out of supply and be hard pressed to fight effectively.
Make sense?
EDITED TO DESTINGUISH BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT DAVIDs...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 08:49 pm: Edit
Tim Losberg, you haven't been forgotten, but I am still working on that base one...
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 08:51 pm: Edit
Nick, any luck with the ruling on the Klingon bases?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 08:52 pm: Edit
Tim, look up
I didn't find anything in the archives, and will check my captain's logs, and if I can't find it I will query Jeff Laikind.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 08:53 pm: Edit
Tim, my own thought is that they are released with the home fleet, and you can probably go with that, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't contradicting a previous ruling...
By Erik Underkofler (Eunderko) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 09:41 pm: Edit
This has probably been answered somewhere already, but what is the cost to build a CPF?
524.112 says 3 EP, but 701 SIT says 5 EP. (I didn't see a correction in the Captain's Log #26 AO errata)
Also, is the cost to build a Klingon PPF the same?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 11:02 pm: Edit
" It says nothing about not being able to operate there"
Nick, it is implied by the rule. The excess ships have to get out of Dodge.
Joe
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 11:09 pm: Edit
I would have to agree with that as the spirit of the rule. It would seem that there should never be more than one Kzinti Expeditionary fleet, plus the one allowed tug.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 11:33 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick, You must have posted as I was typing
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 11:57 pm: Edit
Joe and Chris, right, exactly, even though it doesn't mention "operate in", only "enter" it is implied in the rule. I said a bit further down in that post that an example based on that premise is "balony". That is why I am saying the Kzinti must pay the expeditionary cost (whether the supply line is open or not) for each kzinti ship in fed space.
I am saying that the only way for the kzinti to avoid paying for the ships is if there are no ships in fed space (during this scenario, three turns).
I have a problem with allowing the kzinti ships to not pay for a ship in fed space on the premise that it will move out of fed space "as soon as possible" since that is difficult to write a rule to enforce. Define "get out of dodge", taking into account fighting on the way back, can they hit a coalition target on the way back, what if they are attacked on the way back? Can they go the off map route? Only if the onmap route is blocked? If Kzinti ships in fed space were not paid for (and thus cannot "operate" in fed space, start moving as far as they can toward kzinti space, and end on a Fed BATS on their sixth move pulse. Now the coalition attacks that BATS, can the Kzinti fight? Can they be damaged? It would be hard to enforce a "get out of dodge rule". Does a "get out of dodge" rule require you to use op move? Strat move? Owner option?
Hence the confusion with the rule.
I say it is much easier to rule that (for turns 7, 8, 9), at the start of each alliance turn, the Kzinti pay the expeditionary cost for any kzinti ship in fed space (whether the supply path is open or not). The maximum number of kzinti ships in fed space is equal to the maximum number of allowed kzinti expeditionary ships. Kzinti ships can only enter fed space on these turns if the kzinti pay the expeditionary cost for such units, and once they enter, the Kzinti must continue to pay the expd cost until they leave fed space.
Such units in fed space during this scenario may be ACTUALLY getting supply from A) expeditionary "payments" through a supply path back to the kzinti grid, B) from federation "homeless" arrangements if the expeditionary supply path is cut, or C) not at all if the supply path to kzinti grid is cut and the feds do not pay the homeless cost. In all of the above cases, the Kzinti are paying the expeditionary cost even if it isn't getting there (in case the supply lines reopen).
In other words, where you said in your post "excess ships must get out of dodge", I am saying "if some ships get out of dodge, you can stop paying for them, and not before", because that is easy to enforce and define, and is more fair.
Make sense?
The only kink I see in my ruling is if there are (from the first scenario, turn 6 and prior) lots (lots meaning more than an expeditionary fleets worth, i.e. 12 ships) of kzinti ships interned in fed space that would be released on turn 7. Not sure what to do about that.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 02:34 pm: Edit
Rule (from F+E2K) has:
"(502.65) For philosophical reasons, the Federation never built PFs. However, see (502.9) for the reason why.
Players familiar with STAR FLEET BATTLES can experiment with "conjectural" Federation PFs by using the "Ship #" counters as PFTs. These would have factors of 5-7 P */3-4 P. The ship is an NCL variant in Fall Y171; counters are provided in Carrier War.
"
YIS for the Fed NPF is FY171. It's change is not in the Errata File online.
Is it fixed somewhere else?
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 03:08 pm: Edit
can anyone give me a idea on what range you come up with the number you get off&def number. Is it 4 hexes 5 hexes or 10 hexes. If you can give me that it would help me understand the numbers. thank you
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 03:49 pm: Edit
I don't think it is that simple.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 04:25 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick, I think that answered my question perfectly.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 05:13 pm: Edit
ok can you then help me to understand it ....using the Lyran ok the ESG system. each ESG can build a sheild against fighters ,drones and mines. this field take damage with the other whom hit this shiel or field...in SFB this system can be used in ramming a other ship...I feel that The ESG is not added to this number ..like the Escort they get to add a point to the defend number ....using thta is a one of my point about the ESG ...that is why I ask what range this use in on the Off& Def numbers
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 05:30 pm: Edit
Michael,
They don't usually use a "Range", they use a "Class" as a baseline.
For example, all CA's (Fed CA, Kli D7, Lyr CA) are an "8", all DW's are a "6", all CW's are a "7". Obvious exceptions: plasma races & Hydrans
Then from that baseline modify ships. A D6 is obviously inferior to a D7 (missing 2 Phasers) so it gets downgraded to a 7-8.
A F5L is obviously better than a F5, it goes to a "6" (don't ask me about the defense on that one, better SFB players than me know that one).
Escort values are determined by SVC, which stay the same, which get lowered. Lyran Escorts a big question of why they are so good.
If you are trying to figure out a new ship's F+E factors (IE Omega/Magellic ships) find a comperable F+E ship and go from there, that would be my suggestion.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 05:58 pm: Edit
Scott..thanks... well going by that..and i have done so..I feel that the ESG system is not added to the Lyran ships ..again using the Escort ..yes the Lyran is better because of the Phaser-1 in place where the heavy weapon was taking out...but I feel the the ESG system is not added to the ships. but looking at the Phaser-3 and the Gs the other are right behind the Lyran...But the Lryab are not a Fighter & carrier...But the rule say in SFB is a defend weapon .... but can be used as a ram ( this is the only race that can ram a other ship..it is written in the rule)... the rule does say it design was for Fighters drone and minefield .... this Tech was pointed at the Kzinit and hydran....which ARE Fighter type tech races..and the Kzinit are drone based tech race..that is where I'm lost on, is the defend value of the Lyran.. like a gain going back to the Escort ships with all the races ...the point that is added to the ship defend value IS BASED on the Aegis system which is try in to the carrier group..which I undertsand why on that
yes I know this may be in the wrong area but this i know started here but I feel that something need to be added ...so please i hope you understand what this is pointed at I do feel that THE ESG IS NOT added to F&E.thanks again
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 06:46 pm: Edit
Michael,
Your posts would be easier to read if you put a blank line between paragraphs.
As to the ESG, it's been abstracted into strength of the ship. If I am to understand what you want, you think the Lyran ships should have a higher ComPot than other races' ships of the same class. Not everything translates over from SFB to F&E well.
Also, please consider game balance. As all Lyran ships have ESGs, they would start the game with stronger ships than the Kzinti or Hydran and thus would smash thru them both too easily. This leaves more Klingons to face the Federation ... they fall, and the Gorns are left holding the line by themselves.
Garth L. Getgen
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 07:10 pm: Edit
Michael, lets take the conversation to "F+E General Discussions" and leave this area.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 08:40 pm: Edit
i'ma little lost on this... i was thinking this would go here because it is a question I'm asking.and past posts on here was aim at SFB for F&E or a rule from SFB was posted in here to rule on a part of F&E....its state above site the steps of how this work ok....and i feel by going to the other site ,in a way will not answer this .. which i may be wrong on but i feel follow this site rules i'm not
Garth
yes you do underpart of what I say bout only on the Defend ComPot side...and on balance is pointed at the Defend side
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 02:54 am: Edit
Nick.
Can any/all of the Lyran EB, Klingon West, or Klingon southern reserve move turn 3? Of particular importance is whether the reserve marker of the SR can be relocated.
A simply yes/no for each fleet willl suffice.
Dave.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 05:32 am: Edit
Hi Nick
If a fleet moves two hexes, picks up a fast ship in that hex and moves another 4 can the fast ship carry on and move a fifth hex?
Thanks
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 07:16 am: Edit
Real basic question: The Lyran OB/Production Schedule in AO list their builds for S168. Do they get those builds as well as the F168 before they attack?? If so, where is that rule?? Or am I just confusing myself again?? Thanks!!
Garth L. Getgen
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:00 am: Edit
Erik Underkofler, the correct CPF/CPX cost is 3 not 5. Rule is right, SIT is wrong.
Scott Tenhoff, I can't figure out from your post what needs to be fixed. So the YIS is FY171. Does this contradict something else, and if so what? Are you saying Y171 is wrong?
David Slater: All this is in rule (601.2) turn 3.
Lyran EB: can move turn 3, but cannot attack the Hydrans.
Klingon West Fleet: can move turn 3, but cannot attack the Hydrans.
Klingon SR Fleet: Can only move if the Hydrans attack the coalition. So that means the SR could move to react to hydrans on the alliance half of the turn, but cannot move operationally/strategically on the coalition half of turn 3. If the SR reserve marker is designating a reserve fleet, then that fleet could move only if the Hydrans attack the coalition. The reserve marker cannot be relocated since it is not released until the hydrans attack. You can move already released ships to the SR starbase and make a reserve fleet out of them (with the SR reserve marker), but again, that reserve fleet can only move if the Hydrans attack (because you need the ships and the marker released before you can move any of them.
James Southcott, that is correct. By getting "picked up" or "absorbed into the stack" the fast ship skipped its first two movement pulses, but it still gets all remaining pulses.
Garth, technically, that line should probably read Spring Y169-Y174:... It is not extra production for you to get on turn 1, while they were built, those Spring Y168 ships are already deployed in various fleets.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 03:33 pm: Edit
Nick - questions!
Supply and reserves.
A Lyran force is in Hydran space and in supply at the start of the turn. After Hydran movement, the Lyran force is attacked and is cut off from supply.
As they was 'in supply' at the start of the turn, they are in supply for the combat -
So, can a reseve fleet attack a blocking force, as the ships are in supply for combat purposes but are out of supply?
If the Lyran ships die (without a reserve opening a path to them)- do they get salvage?
302.761 - Advanced Rule for withdrawal.
Rule mentiones 'may' retreat separately, but last sentence mentions that if both retreat priorities allow them to retreat to the same hex, they can do so.
So, if the optional rule is used -
1) Must allied ships retreat seperately?
2) If they don't have to retreat seperatly, can they change this within the same comat turn?
Example - Lyran/Klingon Force does a fighting retreat from a battle with a Lyran Command ship - both forces retreat with Lyran retreat priorities, into a hex hex (kill the single ship there), continue the fightign retreat, but change to a Klingon command Ship and retreat to a Klingon retreat prioties, they then retreat again, but both with own retreat priorities.
This seems strange!
(I believe the 'may' in this rule should be a 'must'!)
Thanks
Paul
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 11:21 am: Edit
Nick,
I just noticed that the master errata file (http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/erratfne.html) only includes info up through CL25. Will it be updated to include CL26? (No hurry, just an honest question)
Tony
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 06:07 pm: Edit
Tony, yes, it is part of my post-Origins plan to update the master errata file.
I have to finish the Fed Frigate deckplans first for GPD Module Prime Alpha first, but I will get there.
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 09:29 pm: Edit
Nick, can you take a look in the After Actions topic for CO and look at the problem I posted. What's the proper resolution to the dilemma??
Thanks.
Garth L. Getgen
P.S> That reminds me: I need to e-mail you about deckplans.
By Stephen Rasmussen (Razman) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 12:42 am: Edit
I couldn't find the answer to this one in the rules...
Can a fleet retrograde to an allied supply node where part of that fleet will be out of supply?
to be a little more precise, can they retreat to a allied bats 6 hexes away, which will be in supply next turn, assuming my opponant doesnt manage to blow up the MB thats going up this turn... the fleet would be out of supply at that bats this turn, except for the dozen that can be supplied as homeless.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 11:51 pm: Edit
Paul Howard: Yes, the reserve can unblock supply, since the ships in combat really are out of supply. You might be trying to open supply for reasons of retreat/retrograde. The in supply for purposes of combat thing is just that, for purposes of combat. They are still out of supply for all other purposes.
If the optional retreat rule is used:
1) you can choose at each retreat to use the normal rule, or the optional rule. So, in effect, you don't have to retreat separately since the optional rule allows you to choose to use the normal rule at any point. Also note, that even if using the optional rule, if it is still possible to retreat to the same spot after each race evaluates their own retreat priorities, you must go to the same spot (last sentence of (302.761)).
2) The rule says you can change your decision (normal or optional rule) each time a retreat is required, which can be in the same combat phase when you have a string of fighting retreats.
Garth Getgen, I would guess that the 6th fleet OB is correct, and the turn 10 PWC is wrong, should only show one HD there. That way the 2nd and 6th fleets match, and everything matches better with what is in F&E2K which only shows one HD on turn 10 PWC.
Stephen Rasmussen, If you are in supply at the retrograde step (or during the combat step), then you can retrograde. In doing so, you move to any friendly retrograde point. This includes planets, bases, FRDs, etc. There is NO requirement that the retro point itself be in supply, or provide supply to the units moving there. Your supply status at the start of the retro step is enough to allow you to retro to any valid retro point in range. The supply status of said retro point is irrelevant.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 05:46 pm: Edit
Nick question on retrogrades...
Hydran fleet in supply at beginning of movement. At the instant of combat it is out of supply. It retreats from the combat towards the Kzintis. At the instant of retro it is again in supply (due to Kzinti ships opening a supply path to small planet 1105).
My question is, can the Hydans that are now in supply to its Allies planet at 1105 retro to that point?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 05:59 pm: Edit
Oh no.....here we go again ........
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 06:12 pm: Edit
Jimi, the Hydrans in your example are not currently homeless and are not in supply from Hydran supply sources, right? So they are currently out of supply?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 06:14 pm: Edit
Jimi, that Kzinti planet is not a supply point for the Hydrans..
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 06:22 pm: Edit
I think the process is, that the Kzintis have to have so many "homeless ship" spots paid for, for the Hydrans to use the Kzinti has supply points.
edit: after reading below. The Kzinti's pay for homeless ships, Economic Phase of AT3, so they are ready to accept the Hydrans during Retro AT3.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 06:31 pm: Edit
Ah, somehow that part slipped me mind. So when they are 'paid for' by the Kzinti's next turn then they are in supply as homeless (at least 12 of them will be) correct?
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 06:42 pm: Edit
Nick,
Okay, thanks. That needs to be fixed in FIGHTER OPS then. Carrier Wars lists 4xHD for the Gorn Home Fleet. F&E-2K and AO list only three such.
Also, the Romulan PWC for SP's do not add up, either. I'll let you all figure out which product and which listing is "more right".
Garth L. Getgen
By John Robinson (John_R) on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 03:39 pm: Edit
Do you need an operational shipyard to buy an operations group for an HDW?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 06:58 pm: Edit
Can the Formation Bonus ship be selected for a Random SFG selection?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 04:54 pm: Edit
John, you need the shipyard, since the HDW rules specify that the operations groups are being "built", and since they cost more than 3 EPs, cannot be built at starbases.
Tim, (312.232) mentions picking "eligable targets" to be randomly selected, so the Form Bonus ship is still immune to stasis, whether targetted or random.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 08:19 am: Edit
Ok. Taking the question to the next step, at what point, if any, can the Hydran Old Colonies shipyard build an OG?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 10:39 am: Edit
Nick, Fighter reaction question.
If a base (or carrier etc) reacts outs its fighters and then is attacked, can the SB bays be filled with extra fighters from the defending fleet?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 01:50 pm: Edit
OK, if a ship is in suply at the start of the turn, but out of supply for OPmove AND out of supply for combat, does it fight at half streagnth?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 05:00 pm: Edit
John, not until it is complete, since the rules only allow specific builds during the offmap yard "upgrade turns," and operations groups have not been added to that list.
Tim, I would have to say no, since rule (205.7) does not allow it. Note that with (205.76), those fighters are still keeping the base as their home, they fly back to the base between rounds of their own battle. The rule allows homeless fighters from that reaction battle to join with the independent fighters (in essence transferring to the base), but there is nothing allowing the base to house additional fighters while its own existing fighters are in another hex.
If you resolved the reaction battle first, and if some or all of the reacting fighters were destroyed, then yes, a number of fighters equal to those destroyed can be transferred to the base when you resolve the combat in the base's hex.
Chris, first of all, you do not evaluate supply during Op movement, so that is not even a consideration. If you were in supply at the start of the turn, then you do not fight at half strength, regardless of conditions at the start of combat, however, if you were in supply at the start, out of supply at combat (but fight without penalty), you do not get to retrograde unless you are in supply at the start of the retro step.
At Origins I went over this whole supply thing with the F&E players to find the confusing parts, and then with Steve to clarify the confusing parts, and the relevent rules were rewritten a bit to be more clear. The trick is that the various rules just say "supply" as a general concept, but you actually have to consider 1) supply status, 2) whether there is a valid supply path, and 3) sometimes supply range, all of which may or may not be the same thing in any given situation. This can cause some ambiguous situations, I knew how it was supposed to work, but it was hard to explain just by pointing to the rules. Now that the FF Deckplans are done and sent off, I can give the master errata file a much needed update, which will include this.
Let me at least try to work up the stuff that was decided at Origins and post it (since the rest of the Master Errata file will need more work before it gets its update).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 07:03 pm: Edit
Ok, Nick. The reason I did ask this is because of the points in the SoP that deal with Supply. There is a line that deals with OP move supply--3B1.....
1A (410.22) Start of turn.
2A1 (410.23) Supply check for repairs
3B1 (410.21) Start of Operational Movement.
5-3A (410.22) Perform second check for combat supply.
6A (410.24) Check supply for retrograde.
Now, for most of these, except 2A1, they apply to both players at all times.
So, if you are in general supply at the start of your opponents turn, but then your supply point is destroyed during raids (Phase 3A) does that mean that ships cannot use extended reaction, and even though they are still out of supply during combat can still fight at full COMPOT?
I always thought that if you were out of supply at the start of Op-move AND during combat then you were out of supply and thus fought at reduced levels.
We have a battle coming up that kinda hangs on this, which is why I ask again.
Thanks Nick.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 12:21 am: Edit
And as an expansion (or reversal) to the above, raids could open a supply path to units that were out of supply in phase 1A (by destroying or having enemy units retreat)...[forgot which of the reports had this sitrep]
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 12:47 am: Edit
Stew, that was also our game. Lar used 2 raids to kill ships blocking supply and thus was in supply for opmove, though out of supply from the start of the turn.
By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 10:42 am: Edit
I think that was a mistake... in the sequence of play.
Maybe it was an oversight, but the raid rules clearly specified that raids could NOT block/unblock supply. So, I think that Chuck forgot that (or didn't realize) and put the sequence of play together with the incorrect order.
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 12:08 pm: Edit
Pete's right otherwise what's the point of (314.18) Raids cannot block or unblock supply lines...
By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 12:15 pm: Edit
Some discussion in the Term Papers section on the Marquis area. During turns 1-6, is the Marquis area "released" in terms of base upgrades? Obviously you could site 1 (and only 1) MB with the Marquis SB, but can you then upgrade it before turn 7 (or various other conditions)?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 12:20 pm: Edit
That has to do with actually tracing supply, IE you can trace supply though a hex with an allied unit. I think that is all it is talking about.
By Peter Riewe (Riewe) on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 02:17 pm: Edit
I would assume (314.18) refers to the presence of the raiding ship (zone of controle etc.) is ignored for purposes of supply, but if the raiding ship destroys something, supply could be opened or closed because there is no longer any enemy ships in the raided hex.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 11:07 pm: Edit
Yes I believe that the actions of a raiding ship (destroying a base/ship) can have an effect on supply but the presence of the raiding ship does not effect supply. If that is correct Nick, the the wording could be better by saying 'the presence of raiding ships ...'
By Stephen Rasmussen (Razman) on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 10:12 am: Edit
Along the lines of what is and what isn't allowed in un realeased territory? Can fighters be added to a mobile base which is set up in the territory of an un released fleet? Or is this also considered an upgrade of defenses? Obviously the fighter module could be prepositioned there, but can it be set up?
Just thought it was a point that should be oficially clarified.
By Mario M. Silva (Mariosilva) on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 11:22 am: Edit
Nick, I have a question about (502.9) The Federation Third Way. I and my opponent are just using the base FE2K rules.(We are playing our third full game to get a good grasp of the base rules. Then we plan to take the "traing wheels" off and incorporate all the expansions next game.) My question is this. Can a Federation tug carrying any type of Carrier pod(CV or CVA pod)be considered a "single-ship carrier" for purposes of 502.921? The answer is more than likely in the rulebook but is probably hiding in plain sight from me,as I can not find the answer. Thank you in advance.
By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 12:04 pm: Edit
No, I put in that rule about raiding not being able to block or unblock supply.
Raids cannot block or unblock supply. It is there in CLEAR ENGLISH. And it's usage is correct, since I was the one that advised Steve to put that in the rule. And I absolutely know what my own friggin' intent was, and Steve absolutely understood it.
The original sequence of play had the raids happening after Supply was evaluated (where I think it should be anyway). I was unfortunately not there for the final rounds of the draft on AO, or I would have caught the contradiction in the Sequence of Play.
But it is a contradiction. I don't know how Steve wants to deal with this (actually, I was going to send him a memo on this because I discovered it a few weeks ago myself).
My personal view is that the original rule is the better way to go, and that the sequence of play should be adjusted, but obviously Steve could decide to simply change the (314.18) rule. And yes, it would be a change.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 03:54 pm: Edit
Well in our case, (and the reason for questioning it) the raiding ship went out and destroyed an enemy that was standing in the way of a supply line.
The rule says that raids cannot block or unblock supply and further explains that this is because it/they happen when supply is not being evaluated.
Our original question was one of clarity as the intent (as we read it) of (314.18) here was/is not clear.
What we know (or thought we knew):
A raiding ship is there for the raid phase only and not for the 6 month turn so it would make very much sense that it not be considered to be blocking/unblocking under 411.2 & 411.3 (supply routes).
Since it is the enemy ship is the one doing the blocking or unblocking (as it IS there for the whole turn) it was easy to see that if the ship is not there to block supply when supply is evaluated for operational movement then the ships are in supply.
Our reasoning:
We asked ourselves 'How can a ship that is not there still block supply?' and since the answer seemed obvious that it couldnt we noted to have this vagueness clarified and played on as if the ships were in supply.
If the SoP is wrong then it would seem to me that rule (410.21) would have to be changed as well to amend when supply for Op Moves is done. Or some clarification that says that a ship has to be in supply at both the start of the turn and at the point of supply eval under (410.21) to be considered in supply for Op move.
Thanks Nick for clarifying this. [Sorry to fill Q&A up with discussion maybe we should move responses to Gen. Discuss.]
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 04:48 am: Edit
Nick
A question over retreats
The Klingons have funded an expeditionary fleet at 0413 of a D6M and D7A turn 3 in preparation for a possible hydran attack.
Suppose the Hdyrans attack, and the Klingons also reserve there from 1013.
The hydrans win the battle. Where do the klingons retreat to?
They have 2 ships in supply, which must retreat towards a supply point. As the Lyrans have 0212 adn 0411, this means the "in supply" ships should go to 0313 or 0412.
However, the Klingons also have their reserve ships out of supply (after combat), and there is no hex to retreat to where they will be in supply (0714 is still hydran). Technically then, the remaining klingons can retreat almost anywhere they want to, as the Hydrans will not have put enough ships anywhere around 0413 to stop them.
This allows them to do a cheesy retreat, like one to 0414. Seeing as these ships at 0414 can then be supplied by homeless/expeditionary supply next turn, this allows them extra reach into Hydran space.
So,
1) Do the 2 Klingon stacks retreat different directions according to their supply status?
2) Do the out of supply Klingons have their retreat path dictated by the in supply Klingons?
3) Are there some other retreat restrictions on the out-of supply klingons I have missed?
4) Do things change if there were no Klingons in supply - all the ships having come from the reserve fleet?
There is another facet to this, if the klingons had a fast ship in the reserve, and no ships on 0413 initially, does the whole fleet have to retreat to 0412/0518 on the basis that the fast ship will be in supply at that point (fast ships getting 7-hex supply from 1009)
Dave.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 08:09 am: Edit
Nick
Another question
The Hydran construction turns 1 and 2. Can it start anywhere in Hydran space turn 3 as the Gold fleet, or does it have to join an existing fleet? The rules as I read them suggested I could put the ships anywhere.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 08:47 am: Edit
Raiders/supply
Raiders cannot block/unblock supply directly, because as the rule says, raids happen when supply is not being evaluated.
However, I must believe that the SOP is correct (raids, then OP move phase, the first step of which is a supply status check). The Op Move phase rules say the first step is to check supply, and the raid rules say they take place before the op move phase so...
So, if a raiding unit causes the destruction of another unit, or causes the movement of another unit (through a retreat from single combat), then the destruction/movement of that other unit could affect supply. I cannot believe that this indirect effect is not taken into account because it would be a nightmare of bookeeping.
If a raider destroyes a ship blocking supply (or moves it), then it seems clear to me that supply would then be open from the start of the op move phase (otherwise you have to remember that the moved (or destroyed) ship is still there for purposes of supply, which would be very strange.
What if a raider (DNL with casual PF and prime team) destroyed a BATS, or Base Station, or Mobile Base, I cannot believe we are supposed to keep using that base for supply. That would mean any ships in that (now baseless) hex still get supply for being stacked with a base.
This just seems rediculous to me, so I must rule that, while raiding ships cannot affect supply with their presence or movement, indirectly they can affect supply by destroying or moving other units on the map.
This seems clear, easy to do, and good to me. It gives raiders another thing to do besides disrupting provinces and destroying targets, you can destroy (or move) a target to maybe affect the supply situation.
Please no more discussion on this unless someone wants to appeal, then I will write it up and send it to SVC, along with some other things I need him to look over before posting (i.e. the final versions of the other F&E stuff clarified at Origins).
Other questions I will try my best to get to late tonight, since I have to go to work now...
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 11:52 am: Edit
Nick,
I believe Pete is correct. You would be out of supply for purposes of fighter replacement, salvage and what have you. The SOP is incorrect, IMO.
However, once OpMove rolls around, you would be in supply, as supply is evaluated at that time for movement (410.21)
Joe
By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 02:31 pm: Edit
Nick:
Please look at that sentence...
"Raids cannot block or unblock supply lines..."
Your ruling overrides this. In the example you are citing, you ARE unblocking supply using a raid.
Let me be precise here. You are intermingling the terms "raiding ship" and "raids".
The sentence does not say "raiding ships" don't open supply lines... it says "raids". The actual ACT of raiding. They are not interchangeable.
And we know it is not "raiding ships" because the rest of the sentence reads "because they are conducted at a point in the sequence of play when..." Substitute the words "raiding ships", and you'll realize the sentence doesn't make sense:
"Raiding ships cannot block or unblock supply because they are being conducted at a point in the SoP when the supply status of units is not being evaluated."
How would you conduct a raiding ship? It doesn't make sense.
The SoP was altered (raids were in the early drafts conducted AFTER supply was evaluated, and therefore could not open supply). That is the explanation. Sorry you don't believe me... but I was on staff at the time (and I am on now).
I should point out to you that the reason why I advised Steve to add this rule is precisely because of this: I think it makes raids way too powerful if they can unblock supply lines, and it means that knocking someone out of supply becomes almost impossible, taking away a key dynamic.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 03:13 pm: Edit
Nick - I believe that what Pete is trying to say is he belives differently than you do, and would you please bump this rules question up the chain (to SVC) for further clarification.
We understand and respect that the rules as written appear to support your current position (vis-a-vis the SOP), but Pete believes that this was an accidental error in the SOP not designed to adjust raids.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 03:24 pm: Edit
"We understand and respect that the rules as written appear to support your current position"
Actually, they don't. Re-read what Pete just said.
Right now, there is a discrepancy between two rules. However, the one is specific, and even makes reference to the other.
Joe
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 03:30 pm: Edit
Raids cannot unblock supply.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 03:40 pm: Edit
The question is not if a raid to the hex unblocks supply, but if the Raid kills the ship(s) blocking the supply path.
If the Kzinti's leave a CL blocking the supply path of 20 Coalition ships.
Lyran BC comes up and Raids it, blowing it away during the Coalition Raiding Phase.
Are the 20 Coalition ships in full supply for their move during the Coalition movement phase.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 04:01 pm: Edit
Did somebody mention supply?
According to 410.31, unsupplied units cannot use extended reaction.
At what point is that status evaluated, is that at the instant they want to use extended reaction or at an earlier stage?
By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 04:06 pm: Edit
so this means that if a BATS is destroyed (say a LGE with a CPF and a PT for example) we need to record a 'ghost BATS' for the rest of the turn for supply purposes? This would mean that if a unit is destroyed/moved by a raid it affects supply for the rest of the turn, but if it is destroyed/moved via normal combat/reaction/retreat it ceases to have any effect immediatly?
or should we change the SOP so that the raid happens after supply is evaluated at the beginning of the turn and if the raid destroyes/moves a unit it affexts supply the next time it needs to be evaluated (at the start of combat IIRC). supply can change at this point due to normal ship movement anyway and this would eliminate the need to track ghost units on the map)
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 04:27 pm: Edit
"The question is not if a raid to the hex unblocks supply, but if the Raid kills the ship(s) blocking the supply path. "
It was just answered. There were no exceptions. Nothing that a raid can accomplish can unblock supply.
SVC is very particular in how he chooses words in the rulebooks. If something is prohibited, and no exception is listed, then no confluence of events can happen to make that result happen. People often turn that around because there is not specific prohibitions for every possible permutation, but that is an impropoer approach. If the statement is total, with no exceptions, it means exactly that.
"This would mean that if a unit is destroyed/moved by a raid it affects supply for the rest of the turn"
No. It would mean that the result of the raid would not change supply until the next time it is evaluated, which is during OpMove.
Joe
By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 05:09 pm: Edit
Joe, so a raid only doesn't affect supply the next time it is evaluated, the time after that in the same turn the effect of the raid does affect supply????
that doesn't sound like what SVC is saying and tryig to argue that the rules imply that doesn't make any more sense then Nick's reasoning.
the current rule either either requires keeping track of ghost units for the rest of the turn or it requires the effects of raids to affect supply at some point in the turn.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 05:32 pm: Edit
"Joe, so a raid only doesn't affect supply the next time it is evaluated, the time after that in the same turn the effect of the raid does affect supply???? "
No. The SOP is wrong. I said that before. The raid rule disagrees with the SOP, and SVC agreed with the raid rule. Hence, the SOP is WRONG.
Joe
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 05:59 pm: Edit
Ok, just so I am clear on this:
The SOP section 3B1 rule(410.21) is incorrect and not used?
So, if a convoy in 1606 is providing supplies to a Lyran Fleet in 1701, and that Convoy is destroyed during raids, then the Lyran Fleet in 1701 is still in supply from the Convoy that no longer exists.
Is that what is being said?
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 06:16 pm: Edit
I think that is what Pete wants, I hope I am wrong thought. It really doesn't make any sense that way. A raiders presence should not effect supply as far as I can tell, but the effects of the raid (destroying a ship or base) should effect the supply routes. IMO
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 06:26 pm: Edit
Sigh...
Can we stop the discussion please? It is hard to find the questions I still have to do...
I will send the raid/supply thing on to steve with the other stuff I am working on, cause I am confused on it now...
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 09:25 am: Edit
Is the construction of a Carrier pod set (or pallet for Hydrans/Lyrans/...) counted as 1 of the allowed carrier builds for a turn? If so, would that mean a 6 carrier pod set counts as a medium carrier & a 12 carrier pod set counts against CVA limits?
The reason I'm confused is there are some cases (apparently) where pods do count against limits, and some where they do not. Example, the OOB for the Kzinti specifically says that the Battle Pods count against drone limits. However, no other Production notes specify whether pods count against the appliable limits.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 10:10 am: Edit
Nick, some questions with (I hope) simple answers:
1. Is there a limit on the number of Fighter/PF modules a Starbase can build? Does building modules affect building FF/DW?
2. I'm attacking a planet and destroy the bases and PDUs and devestate the planet. The defender retreats using his first option. I retreat using my option.
Is the planet considered to be have been captured in any way? If it was the shipyard hex, is the shipyard destroyed? If there was a political rule in the scenario based on that planet being "captured," is it triggered?
3. I have a province raider (let's say an F5) in province A, and another raider (say an E4) in an adjacent hex but in province B. The enemy attacks the E4, and the F5 reacts in. The E4 is destroyed and the F5 retreats back into province A.
Is province A still considered captured for my turn? Do I get the econ? Does it reset the time clock on the conquered province?
Thanks in advance. Hope this isn't too many questions in one post.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 02:54 pm: Edit
Jimi LaForm, Homeless ships are declared at the start of a turn, so only after being declared at the start of a turn are homeless ships in supply.
Chris Fant "I always thought that if you were out of supply at the start of Op-move AND during combat then you were out of supply and thus fought at reduced levels." ANSWER: that is essentially correct, if out of supply at start of turn (and if so you will also pretty much by default be out of supply at start of OP Move), and out of supply at the start of combat, then you fight at reduced levels.
Big Huge Raid/Supply discussion: In case you weren't paying attention, the final result is there should be errata to the Advanced Ops SOP (page AO-93) to move step 3B1: op move supply check to be prior to Phase 3A: Raids. This means that even if a raid destroys an enemy ship blocking supply, you still have reduced Op Moves since supply was checked before raids. You may be in supply later, i.e. the supply check for combat, but the Op Move supply check is already done.
Frank DeMaris, the Marquis fleet and area (except for six ships) is released on Turn 2(coalition) if the Klingons enter Kzin space. So on turn 3 (assuming the Klingons have invaded) you can upgrade Marquis bases since they are released (i.e. they are not of the six ships not released).
Stephen Rasmussen, adding modules to bases would be a defense upgrade, so no. They could be stockpiled, but not added until the area is released.
Mario M. Silva, yes, CV tugs are single ships carriers in F&E2k. Under Carrier War expansion you can, but don't have to, give them escorts and treat them like other carriers. There used to be an annex in basic F&E that said CV tugs (and certain other ships) were single ship carriers, this info got moved to the SIT for F&E2k for the appropriate carriers and the annex was deleted as unnecessary, but the CV Tug entry got lost in the process since individual tug missions are not on the SIT! If you have CV War this is clear, but if you just have the basic rules it may seem confusing since that one entry about the tug is now missing.
David Slater:
1) You are missing the first part of rule (302.73) which says all ships must retreat to the same hex, so even though some ships are out of supply, since you have some that are in supply, you are under the supply restrictions and since all ships must retreat to such a hex, the entire force must either go to 0313 or 0412.
2) Rule (600.34) allows you to assign such ships to any fleet.
Tim Losberg, reaction does not have a specific check for supply in the sequence of play, so supply status would have been determined earlier, it would be from the start of turn supply check.
Tony Barnes, in general pods do not count against other construction limits unless there is a specific case rule that says they do.
Paul Bonfanti:
1) There is no construction limit (that I can see), and it would not impact FF/DW production.
2) Not captured, shipyard not destroyed, not captured for any other purpose. You must end the combat step in that hex to "capture" it. I.e. be in the hex after all combat is done, all retreats done, etc...
3) You would still get income since you are occupying the province at the production step. Rule (438.2) specifies that a province has remained captured if no enemy units (original owners) are there at the end of any player turn (and presumably if you are still present at the end of each player turn), so it wouldn't reset the clock.
That should be all questions unless I missed a buried one. If so, speak up.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 04:46 pm: Edit
I added to my previous question about COGs. When, if ever, can the Hydran Old Colonies shipyard produce COGs?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 05:46 pm: Edit
Nick, does a Prime Team used in a raid get the +2 COMPOT from (CO-522.41) AND the +1 die roll modifier in (AO-318.74)?
Or it is one or the other? If it the Prime Team does get both bonuses, then should it not also get the +1 in Single Ship Combat?
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 07:33 pm: Edit
Nick: Does SFB rule (S8.223) traslate over toe F&E at all??
If not, should it?? (That's probably an SVC question.)
Garth L. Getgen
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 07:36 pm: Edit
What is Rule (S8.223)?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 07:39 pm: Edit
Garth,
No
Joe
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 08:33 pm: Edit
Tim, S8.223 is a SFB rule that has to do with Tholian and LDR ships having a command rating one higher than listed when in their own space. It is not used in F&E, as that is already kinda molded into the rules for those races.
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 09:41 pm: Edit
Joe/Chris, would it "break" the game if that rule did apply??
Chris, how is that "molded" into F&E now??
Garth L. Getgen
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 10:37 pm: Edit
The LDR technically isn't in F&E, yet. While there are some rules, they don't have counters, so the (S8.223) effect could still be added.
The Tholians, OTOH, do have the web defense rule: the ability to keep ships out of combat if fighting at a base/PDU with web.
Also, (S8.223) says that the +1 command rating is used instead of command points for these two races. The Tholians do get Command points in vanilla F&E, can buy them in AO, and get an Admiral with the 312th.
So, the Tholians don't need the (S8.223) modifier.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 01:27 am: Edit
Garth, yes.
And what Jeff said.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 12:33 pm: Edit
Are defending ships that withdraw before combat actually moved out of the hex and into another before ships that did not withdraw can attempt to escape using cloaks?
Or, are all ships that withdraw before combat combined into one group with those that escape via cloak and then moved to another hex?
Finally, are any or all ships that withdraw before combat, whether via cloak or simply being allowed to go, combined with ships that retreat from the hex to determine where the ships may retreat to.
I note that if the withdrawals are a separate group from cloakers and/or from retreaters then the defender will have flexibility to escape the hex to multiple hexes with a defending fleet of one race.
By Chris LaRusso (Soulcatcher) on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 12:23 pm: Edit
307.23 Clarification Questions (sorry about rehashing old question, but can't access answers in this archive prior to April 8 2002).
Can Carriers(ships not bases in the hex) send fighters in a pursuit battle? What about a slow unit battle?
Since a ship pursuit battle is fought in the retreat hex, Then carriers(or bases) cannot under 302.35 send fighters because they aren't in the pusuit hex, and under 307.23 (I assume they aren't conducting a reaction move(205.7)) it says they cannot do so.
Since the slow battle is conducted in the original battle hex, you can legally send them into the slow unit battle(ie, 1 battle round). Under 302.742-B units from the original battle force may engage in [non-pusuit] combat.
Above is the answers I can come up with myself. Are they correct?
By Joseph A. Mannino (Joemannino) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 01:32 pm: Edit
Raids and Commercial Convoys
443.24 is clear that the usual combat is not used for raiding a ComConvoy. My question is: Does 314.254 still apply? That if a base or planet is in the hex, that combat with the base/planet would need to be fought first, before the official target of the raid is resolved?
Thanks!
Joe
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 02:47 pm: Edit
John Robinson, not until the shipyard is completed, since COGs are not in the list of things that can be built by the "in progress" shipyard, and the COG rules provide no special exception either.
Chris Fant, you only use the +1, you are using single combat rules, not normal combat rules, so the +2 does not apply. Even if it did apply, remember that the +2 is for the prime team alone, it does not increase the ship's rating, so even if you could use it (which you can't), it would not increase the ship's rating for an extra bonus on top of the first two.
Garth, F&E has no such rule. For the LDR/Tholians, as others have pointed out.
Todd, all such ships (withdrawal, retreat, etc) must go to the same hex. See (302.134), first the withdrawals go to a valid retreat hex, and any ships that later retreat, must go to that same hex, even if retreat priorities have changed. In other words, withdrawal before combat determines your retreat hex for all ships before combat even happens.
Chriss LaRusso, both the pursuit and slow battles are fought in the same hex, see rule (307.4) which specifically says the pursuit battle (last battle round) is fought in the original battle hex, after which retreat is finished (retreating ships move from battle hex to retreat hex).
The reason you cannot have independent fighters in the pursuit force, but you can in the slow battle, is that the rules say so, not because of different hexes. The pursuit force can contain a carrier with its fighters, but cannot have independent fighters as they cannot keep up with the speed needed for pursuit. The slow battle does not have this restriction.
Joe Mannino, Right, you have to fight the base/planet before "raiding" the convoy.
Nick
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 02:54 pm: Edit
Prime Team Question:
Rule (522.43) States that a Prime Team, in Capture mode, must survive the combat and the side gets a bonus to capture.
So if I destroy the ship w/ the Prime Team. The Team Survives on a 1-2, and it still gets a bonus to capture.
That doesn't seem right, as then if you gun to kill the PT capturing (a pursuit battle is the prefect example), then 1/3 the time even if you kill the ship carrying the PT, it'll still work to provide the capture bonus.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 03:08 pm: Edit
Well Scott thats because your fleet was all within 5 hexes of the ship before it blew up and the prime team got aboard one of your ships. How else did it survive? The capture roll is just to see if the prime team was beamed back aboard one of the friendly ships or if it took control of the ship.
By David Johnson (Djj) on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 03:57 pm: Edit
Here's an interesting question:
After several rounds of battle at a planet, I destroyed my opponents 2 PDUs while losing a few ships. We were each left with crippled frigates and I had a "plus point" on my crippled F5; he had a Kzinti FF; we each got a point of damage that killed each other. I rolled a two and captured his ship; he failed his roll.
He now contends that we should have never rolled for capture as there are no ships to facilitate the capture attempt. Is this correct?
If so, can I claim the planet captured just using my newly captured Kzinti FF?
By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 04:03 pm: Edit
David J, it sounds like that F5 had a legendary captian ("if your ship is destroyed there is a 2% chance of you returning to base in an enemy ship" )
however tha newly captured kzinti FF can't do anything for you until you get it back to base
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 11:09 pm: Edit
Do ships that withdraw before combat leave the hex before ships that used cloaked evasion, or are ships using those types of escape moved out of the hex at the same instant?
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 09:56 am: Edit
Can cloaked ships use the device to avoid combat in a raid? The cloaked evasion rules state that it is part of the withdrawl before combat procedure, but there does not appear to be a withdraw before combat option in a raid single combat.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 04:06 am: Edit
Just want to check that I am understanding something correctly.
From the 'Q&A Archive' area
(508.16) Residual Defense Factors are not units in any sense. They do not block retreat or pursuit. You cannot re-devastate them over and over to rack up points. Any mention of Residual Defense Unit should be read as Residual Defense Factor.
For retreat purposes the hex is effectively cosidered empty.....so a fleet with two alternative hexes to retreat to, each having the same priority, one with a devastated enemy planet, the other empty, could choose to retreat to the planet and not have to do so under fighting retreat - ie the fleet could stay there rather than having to retreat again?
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 02:36 pm: Edit
Nick I asked this question a few months ago, I think you said you would refer it to SVC. I was wondering if there was an answer?
According to the rules you can only make 1 CVA per year. However it seems that putting SPB modules on a modular DN for the Romulans is not "making a CVA" it does say it is escorted like a heavy carrier. So I want an official ruling on the modular DN thing here please.
Is a modular DN that recieves a SPB modules considered your only CVA for that year? and if so and you take the modules off could they be transfered to another modular DN w/o counting as a new CVA?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 02:50 pm: Edit
What does, "BY ANY MEANS" mean to you?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 04:53 pm: Edit
"Do ships that withdraw before combat leave the hex before ships that used cloaked evasion, or are ships using those types of escape moved out of the hex at the same instant?
"
This has been sitting there for a few days, so I thought I'd lend a hand.
Todd,
See (306.11). The cloak effectively allows you to withdraw additional ships beyond (302.1). The cloak ships move indinitessimally after the withdrawing ships, but effectively at the same time (see Phase 5-1A through 5-1E). Note that the slight difference in timing is moot, as the cloak ships must go to the same hex as the non-cloaked ones as per (302.134).
Note that my answer carries no official weight whatsoever.
Joe
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 05:25 pm: Edit
If the ships do not withdraw simultaneously, then they may or must be withdrawn to a different hex than if they withdraw exactly simultaneously, given the proper circumstances (only one hex is closer to supply and it contains more enemies than withdraw for free but fewer enemies than withdrew via free and cloak in total.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 05:30 pm: Edit
Todd,
Please look at (302.134). If ships withdraw from combat, then ALL remaining defending ships that withdraw MUST go to the same hex.
Retreat priority is determined at the time of withdrawal, and the same hex is used by sucessive retreats. Retreat priority is not re-evaluated. The rule is very specific. Specific rules trump general rules ALWAYS.
Joe
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 01:53 pm: Edit
I need a clarification on how Admirals affected the pursued force in a regular pursuit battle.
316.213 rather cryptically says that an Admiral in the pursued force would increase the command rating of his ship and might (307.31) allow an additional ship to be included (up to the maximum force)
If the admiral increase the command rating wouldn't that definately (and not might) allow an extra ship since 307.31 statse that the prusued force is the max allowed for the flag ship?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 02:12 pm: Edit
Logically it doesn't make sense to me that a fleet retreating from the hex can get an additional ship into the force using an admiral, while the pursuing, victorious force is not able to get an additional ship using an admiral.
But of course, I can see where it appears that is the case, though I hope it is not just for pure logical thoughts.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 02:21 pm: Edit
Pursuing is not limited by command rating, you pursued force is limited by command rating. In this manner it makes sense(although it is confusing).
A pusuing force could be increased if not ship with command rating 5 or better was in the pursuing force.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 02:27 pm: Edit
Joe, Nick,
If ten ships withdraw before combat, then another ten ships cloaked evade, it may be important whether they leave the hex simultaneously. If an enemy fleet of fifteen ships is in the only hex which, for the withdrawers, is closer to a supply source, then if the twenty ships withdraw simultaneously they must go to that hex with fifteen enemies. If the withdrawers do not leave the hex simultaneously, then they may not go to the hex with fifteen enemies (assuming another hex is in supply and has nine or fewer enemies).
The question is not about whether they can go to two hexes, only whether they leave simultaneously.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 02:29 pm: Edit
Yea, we understand that the pursuer can use an admiral to get to its max of 6 ships if the largest pursuing command ship had a say command rating of lower then 5.. but, we are wondering if the pursued force can build a line of say...
7 cripples, 1 command 10 ship, 2 healthy ships, and then add in another healthy ship using admiral.
If the pursued force can use an admiral, why can't the pursuing force?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 02:49 pm: Edit
I think the 6 for the chasing forces is because all of their ships have to be spread out to chase the withrawing fleet down.
They physically have to be spread out to contain them.
An Admiral is not going to be able to 'contain' the fleeing fleet at all, at most he can command the ships closest better.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 02:52 pm: Edit
Yes but remember, the pursuer is chasing down a fleet of cripples. He can marshall his forces much easier to slam into his choice of crippled ship or ships they want dead. That is my understanding for being able to DD as many crippled ships as you desire.
It feels like to me that not only does the pursuer get out compotted, but if only the pursued force can use admirals they are able to marshall their fleeing forces better then the pursuer can marshall his victorious fleet units.. how is this logical?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 04:42 pm: Edit
"If an enemy fleet of fifteen ships is in the only hex which, for the withdrawers"
Todd,
(302.1) refers to Withdrawal before Combat as a combat step (en todo), it is therefore consistent to believe that ALL of step 5-1. However, this is possibly a contradiction to 5-1C, which states that withdrawal is conducted as per 5-7 (this is before cloaked withdrawal). 5-7 includes evaluation of retreat priority as per 302.73.
IMO, this is a hole in the SOP (sorry Chuck).
I think the rule (302.1) is correct and the SOP is incorrect. Teh reference to step 5-7 should happen in previously non existant step 5-1G.
Joe
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 06:00 pm: Edit
Tim:
316.213 rather cryptically says that an Admiral in the pursued force would increase the command rating of his ship and might (307.31) allow an additional ship to be included (up to the maximum force)
Example 1: 10 crippled ships. The pursued player adds 3 uncrippled ships, which include 1xDN (+ admiral) and 2xCA. Because the total number of ships is 12 plus the flagship, the admiral cannot add any more ships.
Example 2: 3 crippled ships. The pursued player adds 3 uncrippled ships, which include 1xDN (+ admiral) and 2xCA. The total is 5 plus the flagship. So the player is allowed to add 5 ships to reach the DN's command rating of 10 and 1 more for the admiral's ability for a total of 6 extra ships. There would then be a total of 9 uncrippled ships and 3 crippled ships.
An admiral CAN add to the forces in a slow-retreat battle (302.742-A).
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 06:10 pm: Edit
Jeff, in your example 1, does the pursued force get to add the compot of all 12 ships? the 10 cripples, the command ship plus the 2 healthy ships? or does he add the compot of 8 cripples(his choice of which 8), plus the command ship and the 2 healthys?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 10:30 pm: Edit
DN + 2 uncrippled + 8 crippled (fills DN command rating) + 1 crippled (for the Admiral bonus) for total Compot.
Any excess crippled ship(s) does not count its attack factor, but can be directed on.
In a capital assault or starbase assault, the retreating fleet will definitely have more cripples than can count for attack value.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 10:32 pm: Edit
Scott Tenhoff: Right, the PT can transfer (somehow) to the ship being captured as it's own ship is destroyed. Or, the PT's ship is destroyed, it transfers to another friendly ship, then captures an enemy ship. Many ways to justify this. Don't try to visualize the actual combat too much, F&E just gives you an overview (i.e. just the results) anyway.
David Johnson, that is correct, the capture rule has no requirement that you actually have ships remaining that round to capture an enemy ship with. Again, you don't know what is going on specifically, you just see the results. Ships A and B could have damaged each other, A captures B, then an hour later A blows up due to combat damage finally causing a reactor failure. Whatever happens to your own ships, you can still capture an enemy ship. Also, destroyed ships are not necessarily destroyed, (salvage is not just parts, but some hulls that essentially go back to the shipyards to be rebuilt), the captured ship itself was "destroyed", but then turns out to have been captured. A captured ship could represent an enemy hull salvaged after the battle by other forces in the hex, whatever... Don't try to justify it as that is the rule and there are many ways it could be justified.
Todd Jahnke: all withdrawal/cloaked evasion would leave the hex at the same time, and this determines the retreat hex to be used later for that battle hex as well. You determine which ships leave one at a time (withdrawal, then cloak) but they leave essentially at the same time. Joe is right, the rules are clear that all ships withdrawing/cloak evading/retreating, go to the same hex, and this hex is determined in the retreat step if you only have retreaters, but is determined in the withdrawal/evasion step if any ships do that.
Bill Schoeller, normal combat is normal combat, and raid combat is raid combat. They use different rules, and raids cannot use withdrawal.
James Southcott, yes, RDUs would not count as enemy units for retreat purposes.
Edward Reece, I will look at it, I remember this now, but had forgotten about it. Sorry, I will look into it again.
Tim Losberg, yes you get an extra ship, but the number of crippled ships and the command rating of the flagship will determine if the extra ship must be one of the cripples or if it can be an additional (beyond the normal 3 allowed) uncrippled ship.
Jimi and Bill, the pursuing force is limited to six ships because the rule says so, an admiral allows a CR 4 ship to bring five others with it. The pursued force is under normal rules and does not have the specific limit (six pursuing ships).
Jodd Jahnke, first figure out how many are withdrawing AND cloak evading, then based on this total figure, go through the retreat priorities and find the withdrawal/retreat hex. This hex is then used for any further retreats from the battle hex. THe withdrawing ships and any that use cloaked evasion are really leaving at the same time (before the first combat round).
Jimi Laform, in your example if you have no more cripples, then yes, the extra ship from an admiral can be an additional healthy one, but if you have an excess of cripples, then the "extra one" will not be an additional added ship from reserves, but will simply be one of the excess cripples that now gets to count for compot.
Sorry for the delay, I have been busy with work, the power outage of an evening (lame excuse, but true), and (I am forced to admit) the fact that Bab5 season 3 and Futurama season 2 came out on the same day.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 10:50 pm: Edit
Edward Reece, I was cleaning out my e-mail, and found the modular DN-CV discussion I had with SVC. I thought I posted the final decision long ago (e-mail is from June 9th), but maybe I forgot. If so, my apologies. Anyway, here is the summary:
When you build the B modules at the same time you add them to the modular ship, they count against your carrier production for that turn (counting against the appropriate sized carrier, SPB is medium, SUB or DN with B modules is CVA). If the B modules are just brought out of storage, then they don't count against carrier production for that turn. Make sense? Yes, you can build them (B modules) on a sparrowhawk (counting as a medium carrier on that turn), and on a later turn move them to the modular DN (which does not count against carrier production, and does not count against your CVA production slot for that turn/year). This is just something the Roms can do, and SVC didn't see it as a big problem, since the modular DNs are in limited supply, and optional.
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 11:19 pm: Edit
Nick:
So, the Roms could build three sets of B modules per year (SPB, SPB, SUB) along with converting two SUP.
The following year, they could use major conversions at Romulus and Remus to move the SPB modules to the SUP's, making three SUB's from the first year's production.
(I hope the above is not true...)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 03:03 am: Edit
Gods, I hope not. Though, it would be very expensive.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 04:46 am: Edit
If you're willing to pay the bucks, I don't see the problem. Lets be honest, the Rom can't afford to buy that many fighters in one turn and pay for the SUPs to put them on. They only start with two in the Pre-War Construction list. Besides, Nick said that they can move B mods to the modular DN, not made B mods part of a permanent SUB conversion. Any SUP to SUB conversion should still count against your CVA limit.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 08:54 am: Edit
Ok thanks Nick.
Greg I don't think you can do that, I believe converting a SUP/SPB/NH/FH/SP to a SUB still counts as a CVA build (and the only one allowed that year). This exception is only for the DN which are modular. Hmmm I think Chris was saying something a few days ago about "any means possible" :p
Sorry Chris but the modular DN are a little on the expensive side and I was searching for a reason to build more then one.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 01:37 pm: Edit
That's just great. I love loopholes like that. Just once I would like a rule to apply to all the ships that are of a class.
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 08:33 pm: Edit
I agree with Cfant. I don't like it, even if you can only move the B-modules to a modular DN.
Daniel: please note in my prior post I listed these as being the limits _per year_, not per turn. If you save your free fighters from one year prior, the cost might not be too bad...
Of course, what will be the limits when we add the FHB from R10? From that book, it appears that some of the heavy hawks are modular, too.
As an aside, I've never bought into the "hard welding" of modules on the heavy hawks since it was decided that an SP could be upgraded all the way to a SUP. At what point does the hull lose it's modularity??? It can't be a size issue, because the modular DN's rule that out.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 10:03 pm: Edit
704 is VERY clear.
One SUB per year BY ANY MEANS.
Modular DNs are not SUB carriers, so no inference should be drawn if the modular DN does not count against SUB/CNV production.
"Lets be honest, the Rom can't afford to buy that many fighters in one turn and pay for the SUPs to put them on. "
Sure they can. I refer you to "The Romulans love a good fight(er)
Joe
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 10:56 pm: Edit
OK. I got the part about (704.0) No problem.
But the process still continues over a longer period of time. IMO, this can make for lots of SUB conversions prior to the introduction of PF's. (After that, I'm thinking about PHX.)
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 06:43 am: Edit
Joe,
Sure you can build a ton of carriers, but you're going to be giving up something in return for the fighters you're paying for. Or you can just build lots carriers every other year as you save up fighters from year to year. The Rom have a very generous carrier build schedule, but usually do not have the money to build all their carriers.
If you've found a way to do it, please share. I'm playing the Coalition in an upcoming game. I've only got to play Rom once before and will gladly listen to any advice more experienced Rom players will give.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 07:35 am: Edit
You trade small ship builds for more fighters.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 08:28 am: Edit
Lets take this discussion to the General Discussion forum before Nick gets upset.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 09:37 am: Edit
I was wondering if the conversion cost on the SKC (Romulan DW based PFT, with no EW) is correct? It is listed as 5 and the other PFT conversion w/o EW only cost 3 the ROC, the Lyran BCP and DNP all only cost 3. If it is ment as a PTP ship I would think it would be cheaper anyway so I was wondering if this was an error or if it was ment to have a cost of 5.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 10:35 am: Edit
One more Romulan question, the KRP doesn't have a variable EW. Shouldn't it be something like 2EW = 2 AF, 1 EW = 5 AF? Even the Klingon PFT's have reduced attack values with full EW.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 10:47 am: Edit
Have you seen the lack of weapons on a KRP in SFB?
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 11:22 am: Edit
Then why does the KRP have 5 AF, surely that is wrong if it has virtually no weapons.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 11:27 am: Edit
My notes have the KRP having 2 Plasma-G, so it does have plasma torpedos
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 11:16 am: Edit
Nick,
If the attacking Player does a fighting retreat into a hex, can the defender use withdrawl before combat before the battle round or can they simply not intercept the retreating units?
By Erik Underkofler (Eunderko) on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 01:21 pm: Edit
Question about CO 521.394 (ground ships landing on planets). The first part of the text "ship which landed takes no further part in combat in that hex" indicates to me that the ship is basically considered 'not there' for the rest of the combat resolution of the hex.
However, the last part of the section says that, at the end of a combat round, "If the force which owns the ship remains in the hex, the ship returns to normal operations"
Should this be end of battle instead of combat round? If so, then does that apply to the landed ship being destroyed if the rest of the fleet retreats (even if it isn't the same combat round that the ship landed)?
By David Johnson (Djj) on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 05:46 pm: Edit
Can a single monitor pin a sigle ship passing through the monitor's hex, if so please site the rule. IOW are monitors ships or are they non-ship units?
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 09:40 pm: Edit
Can the Gorns upgrade a ship from teh off map fleet before it activates?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 10:47 pm: Edit
What happens if the only ship killed in a combat round consists of an unbreakable group, like a 3FE? Do all three ships get captured, or just one of them?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 11:29 pm: Edit
Edward Reece, I don't know about those Rom ship factors off hand (SKC conversion, KRP EW), let me look into them a bit.
Tim Losberg, there is no withdrawal option before a fighting retreat battle round, for either phasing or non-phasing players. Note that (302.771) says the retreater "must fight..." the blocker, which essentially means the blocker must fight the retreater.
Erik Underkofler, I believe the intention is that after landing, the ship does nothing else for the remainder of that battle hex, and is destroyed if the owner retreats, but returns to normal if the enemy is destroyed or retreats.
David Johnson, Monitors do not pin. Fighters/PFs based on a monitor can pin.
Russell Manning, sure, under war status. See rule (600.32).
Robert Padilla, good question. I have a couple ideas but let me think about it. This needs errata probably.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 03:08 am: Edit
Nick:
KRP: 3xP-1, 4xP-3, 2xPlasma-G
SKF: 2xP-1, 4xP-3, 2xPlasma-F
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 10:41 am: Edit
When conducting a fighting retreat, is that special battle round done immediately after retreating from the battle hex, or can it be resolved at any time the phasing player wishes?
By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 03:23 pm: Edit
In Winds of Fire sector B can the coalition score the victory condition "1 point if the coalition devastates any Kzinti planet held at the start of the scenario" only once or for each planet devastated?
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 08:46 am: Edit
Nick, two questions:
1. The rules say that police ships can be called up in any hex in a race's original territory that is connected to the main supply grid. So, this allows them to be called up in a province that has been captured, but is still connected to the main grid, right?
2. Does a raiding ship pin anything? If a raiding ship targets a hex with a single ship in it, can that ship react out to a raid in an adjacent hex?
Thanks.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 03:16 pm: Edit
If I were to use Strategic Movement to move a Kzinti Tug from their capital to the Fed capital to pick up EPs using the off-map route, what happens to the Zin tug once it reaches the Fed off-map area? It would be in supply moving from 1401 to the Zin off-map, and again in supply from the Zin off-map to the Fed off-map, but after that, is it considered out of supply? Expeditionary ships can not trace supply through an off-map area, and out of supply ships can not use Strategic Movement. Would the Feds need to pay for a Homeless ship? What if thi happened betwen Turns 7 and 9, when the Zin are not alowed to be in Fed space unless Expeditionary?
By Bill Su (Wsu) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 01:53 am: Edit
Carrier War 515.43 allows players to escort non-carriers. I seem to recall some discussion/clarification of the resulting groups not having all the capabilities of a true carrier group (e.g., out-of-turn retrograde and escort replacement), but I can't find anything in the errata. Could someone either point me to the official clarification, or else confirm that a non-Phasing Player's escorted PFT can retrograde and receive immediate escort replacements?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 11:41 am: Edit
Robert Padilla, fighting retreat is part of the retreat process and is done at the time of retreat. It is not quite the same thing as retreating into enemy forces and creating a new battle hex which could be resolved in any order (302.75). The AO SOP states that when you retreat under step 5-7D or 5-8G you use rule (302.72), and that requires the use of priorities (302.73), and fighting retreat modifies rule (302.73), so all that takes place at that point in the sequence of play. That is different from rule (302.75) which covers retreating into enemy forces without using fighting retreat.
Grant Strong, I would say for every planet, not just one.
Paul Bonfanti,
1) If you can trace a valid supply path from the hex in question to the race's main grid, then yes you can call up a police ship there.
2) Raiders do not pin, see rule (314.241) for the example you describe. The "within the rules" part refers to range, scout doubling reaction range, etc... Raiders do not pin.
Robert Padilla, "and out of supply ships can not use Strategic Movement." This is simply not true, I can find no such rule, where does it say this? When you use strategic movement, you count against the strat move limits of whichever race's grid you are moving through irregardless of your own supply status at the moment. So when the tug gets from Kzinti off-map to Fed-off map, it now counts against the Fed strat move limits, i.e. the Feds are refuelling the tug for strat move purposes, even if they are not providing it with a full "supply status" for op move, combat, and other purposes.
Bill Su, I honestly don't remember the outcome of this, Jeff has put it into the Fighter Ops topic, so it can be resolved there for the refurbishment of CV War. I will also look at my Capt. Logs and see if there was a prior ruling there about it.
By Erik Davis (Hi_Stik) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 11:42 am: Edit
I was wondering if someone could help me understand SIDS. The rule states that it requires 18 regular damage points to score one SIDS. it requires 8 SIDS to cripple a starbase. This is twice the normal amount of damage via directed damage than all other units are required. Is there some implicit modifier that I'm missing (such as the formation bonus, or the free scout bonus)? It seems to me that only 4 SIDS (18 x 4 = 72 / 2 = 36 pts.) would be required to cripple a starbase. Some clarification would be nice. Thank you.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 03:49 pm: Edit
Nick,
I think I assumed that unsupplied ships can't use strat movement. When using an allied network for strat, does it not count against both races Strategic Movement allowances? I always thought that to use strat, you'd have to be able to trace a supply path back, so either free strat, or paid for strat could be used. I'm happy to be mistaken
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 06:28 pm: Edit
Nick,
Re. your answer to R. Padilla's question on fighting retreat; I request appeal. I don't see anything in the fighting retreat rules that overrules 301.4, stating that the attacking player chooses the order of "All Battle Hexes."
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 07:02 pm: Edit
Erik Davis, that is how it works. You either cripple the base all at once (requiring a huge amount of damage), or do it piece by piece with 8 SIDS steps, each requiring a smaller amount of damage. While it is more overall than the all at once method, it lets you do it over time with smaller compot forces. It is a trade-off.
The only time strat move counts against more than one race (i.e. the owner and an ally), is if you move from one race's grid to another race's grid on the same turn, all with strat moves. In that case it counts against both. If you only move along an ally's grid (not your own) on a given turn, it only counts against the ally's strat move limits.
Todd Jahnke, I will send the question to Jeff. My point was that the entire fighting retreat procedure IS part of retreat, which all takes place as part of one battle hex (even if it is partly in another hex), this is unlike other situations (non-fighting retreat situations) which have the specific rule (302.75) which provides that it is a new battle hex which can then be resolved in any order. In other words, fighting retreat does not create new battle hexes (it is simply a continuation of the current one). I will send to Jeff though...
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 08:45 pm: Edit
Can a reserve fleet be used to open up supply to a fleet which is currently tracing supply to a partial grid? Such movement would result in supply being re-established with the main grid during combat.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 08:53 pm: Edit
Todd,
I agree with Nick. The fighting retreat battle is all part of the original Retreat. In addition to Nick's points, if there are ships in the hex already that are allied to the retreating ships, then they also are required to retreat immediately.
By Peter Riewe (Riewe) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 10:21 pm: Edit
During a capital defense, are auxiliary units automatically part of the static forces or are they split between the static and mobile forces just like ships?
(511.53) talks about splitting ships, but (511.52) does not mention auxiliaries as being static.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 01:56 am: Edit
Re: Fighting Retreat Ruling Above
The rules currently allow the attacker to choose the order of hexes fought.
Now, with this ruling, the Defender who is on the losing end of a battle hex can now use this desperate combat maneuver to steal the initiative from attacker in a series of adjacent hex battles. And since the Defender has the first retreat selection option this becomes an even stronger tactic.
(If this ruling stands, I'm going to claim this a a term paper.)
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 10:15 am: Edit
What is considered to be the NZ hexes around the ISC? Is it just a 1 hex band running around their space, or would all the NZ hexes above and below the ISC be considered part of the ISC neutral zone?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 10:50 am: Edit
I asked the same question about fighting retreat some time ago (over a year???), and appealed up to Jeff/SVC. They ruled the same thing at that time as well.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 11:12 am: Edit
Nick, can a leftover Romulan SK/SP module be used in a new construcition ship? and if so does it save any money?
As an example, lets say I need more light units and have enough scouts so I convert a SKF into a SKA (cost is 0 if done as a conversion, 1 if done as a modular conversion) so I have a SKF (scout module) left. If on a later turn I decide to build a SKF can I use the module and what cost? To me rational thought says that if you have a module and your adding it to a new build ship their should be no cost but the rules do not address this situation, they don't even say it can be done as far as I can tell.
By Peter Riewe (Riewe) on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 11:55 am: Edit
Another capital defense question:
When defending an occupied capital, does the combat follow the same procedure as a normal capital assault, or is it treated as a hex with multiple targets (i.e. when two bases are not co-located)?
The example in mind is when the Kzinti tries to re-conquer their capital. Would the coalition get the benefit from seeing the Kzinti battleline before composing it's own? (the static/mobile split should be fairly straight forward since there is nothing to loose from getting outlying systems devastated).
And as a follow up. If the Kzinti capital have moved off-map, would the Kzinti continue to follow capital defence procedure when defending 1401 (The example in mind is a late-war re-conquest attempt by the coalition)?
Thanks,
Peter
By David Lang (Dlang) on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 03:56 pm: Edit
Peter, the two cases are already treated the same.
anytime you have more then two targets in the hex the defender gets to see the attackers lines before forming their own.
this is sometimes a good reason to put your fixed assets in different locations in a hex if you have a large enoguh fleet to defend them.
say a coalition FRD park with each FRD in a different hex, you don't get the compot of all the fixed defenses when defending them, but you get to tailor your force against the attacking fleet, and the coalition is likly to be better able to fight in multiple systems simultaniously then the alliance
By Bill Su (Wsu) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 01:40 am: Edit
Combined Ops 521.394 says a "ship which landed takes no further part in combat in that hex", which I interpret to mean that the ship stays on the planet until the end of the combat PHASE. However, it also says "At the end of the combat round, if the force which owns the ship retreats, the ship is considered destroyed", which I interpret to mean the ship stays on the planet only until the end of the combat ROUND (since it can retreat after the next combat round). So can a ship which landed be in a battle force in the next combat round (obviously, assuming there is another combat round in that same hex), or not?
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 07:07 pm: Edit
Robert P.: This is not an official answer, but may help.
See Sector F in "Gale Force" or "Winds of Fire". In each case, the NZ hexes which are not directly adjacent to the ISC are controlled by the Gorns (in the north) or the Romulans (in the south).
(503.2) is very specific in that it states only hexes adjacent to ISC territory are off limits.
In (503.62), the second sentence would have no meaning if this area could not be captured, as it is the only area on the map of non-adjacent NZ hexes (2617 and 3217 being specifically addressed).
(505.3) allows the Roms to send survey ships off map through hex 6119.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 07:03 pm: Edit |
September - October 2003 Archive
By Bill Su (Wsu) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 09:50 pm: Edit
I'm confused about how to tell which units are non-ship units. Intuitively, it seems clear to me that SAFs and LTFs are not ships, but 756.0 doesn't say that they are non-ship units. On the other hand, 756.1 says overloaded tugs are slow units, and it seems intuitively clear that an overloaded tug is a ship, so I infer being a slow unit does not preclude being a ship.
In short, are SAFs, LTFs, and Auxiliaries ships, or non-ship units? They are listed as slow units, but not as non-ship units.
In a related question, 756.0 lists Convoys as non-ship units, but not Military Convoys. On the other hand, 756.1 specifically lists both as slow units, and I don't see a rule that says Military Convoys are a type of Convoys as opposed to a completely different type of unit. That makes it seem Military Convoys are ships, but that seems intuitively wrong.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:54 pm: Edit
How does the movement of monitors work? Does a final destination have to be declared when it begins movement? Must it proceed to it's destination "directly", not making side stops?
Example:
The Tholians are attacked by the Coalition, and join the Alliance. Monitors can be sent to allied planets (IIRC) . The Tholians, on the turn after their attack, build a monitor to go help protect Earth - their new ally.
The Tholians decide not to send it via Strat movement (as it would cost them their precious Strat move allowance - and it's so useful for them otherwise). It has to leave the capital, as the capital already has 2 monitors. The Tholians move it to one of their 2 SBs as a staging point to move on toward Earth. "Unfortunately", the connection to Earth is destroyed, and their is no viable way to get the Monitor there on any later turn.
Can the Monitor stay at the SB? Can the Tholians do this again the next turn (and the next, and the next...)?
While it's against the spirit of the rules, I don't think it's against the letter of the rules - I don't see any definition of how directly a monitor must reach it's destination.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 12:09 am: Edit
Questions on captured LTT/Tugs...
- The rules (for LTT 516.11) state that 1 LTT can be produced per turn by any means. If a race captures & converts a Tug/LTT (or fast ship, or any other ship limited to 1 per turn/year), does that count against the 1 per turn limit?
- If the Hydrans capture a Klingon LTT, would the newly converted LTT be a 6-7 or a 3-7(2) unit?
- Similarly, if the Hydrans capture a Lyran TGC (or Klingon TGA) would it be a 8/4 unit - then throw on the Battle pods for a truly fearsome 15-10(2) unit.
- If the LTT/Tug gain the Hydran factors, do they then also have to pay for the fighter factors?
- If a tug/LTT with a pod is captured, is the pod captured as well? Per the AO SIT, pods now generate salvage, so their is presumambly something left of them on the captured tug.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 11:09 am: Edit
Peter Riewe: Aux ships are split between static and mobile forces.
Robert Padilla, only the hexes actually adjacent to ISC provinces are non-claimable by other races during the general war.
Edward Reece, see last sentence of (433.433). If you convert or sub a skyhawk variant during construction, you still build the A module for it, they just go directly into storage. In other words, every SK hull you build comes with an A module whether you use it or not. In other words, don't keep track of A modules, you will always have enough, just keep track of spare non-A modules. This is why all conversions back to the base hull are free, since the A modules are always available.
Now, in your example, if you have a spare F module, and you build a SKF from scratch using it, then you pay the 4 EPs for the SK, and use a modular conversion (no cost) to add the F module. This modular conversion can be done either during movement (using a point of Op movement), or done during the production step as a "normal" conversion would be, but counting against one of the starbase's three modular conversions. The point is, you don't pay the 2 pt conversion cost since those modules already exist, but you do pay the full 4 pts for the basic hull since you still get an A module with the deal, so that a future conversion back to the basic hull is free. Just remember to count the conversion against the starbase's modular conversion capacity if the module exists already, but against the normal conversion capacity if you are building the module at that time.
Peter Riewe, David is correct, capital attacks are treated much like any other "multi-location" hex.
If the Kzinti are trying to retake their capital hex, the Coalition goes through splitting of forces into mobile/static etc... And if the Kzinti capital proper is off map, they still go through the same motions when defending their original capital hex, or any other multi-location hex.
Bill Su, after a ship lands, it does nothing else for that battle hex. The first part is correct, the later part of the rule should say "at the end of that battle hex..." In other words, a given ship can only land once per battle hex, it cannot land every round, picking up more G forces from reserve units.
Annex (756) can be confusing. Sometimes you need to consult the rules for the unit you are interested in. SAFs and LTFs are non-ship units mainly since they are made up of multiple units. Tugs (overloaded or not) are always ships. Military Convoys are non-ship units like convoys, like regular convoys. Monitors are ships (519.23) since they can be captured and produce salvage. Aux units are non-ship units (513.121), they cannot be captured, but do produce salvage as per the SIT.
Tony Barnes, see rule (519.13) which says that when a monitor moves, it most declare a destination (a valid planet for the monitor to be deployed at), and must move there by the most expeditious route. Also see (519.113) which says a monitor can only be assigned to owned planets, NOT allied planets. Tholians CANNOT build monitors to protect Earth.
Capturing any ship does not count as producing such a ship. The production limits are on your own production.
Currently there is no rule for hydrans to add hybrid fighter factors to captured ships, but such a rule was being discussed, possibly for a future captain's log. So for now, no rule allows adding hybrid fighters to captured units.
Pods are not captured, only ships.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 11:30 am: Edit
Thanks Nick
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 07:04 pm: Edit
Nick, I think you skipped my question from last Wednesday. I'm going to re-phrase it anyway in order to try and make more sense.
(203.731)
Can a reserve fleet be used to open supply to the main grid even if the a fleet/battle hex is currently in supply through a partial grid?
For example a Kzinti (Marquis) fleet is in combat in a partial grid on BATS 1805. Another Kzinti reserve (Battle) fleet located off-map could re-establish the connection to the main grid by reserving to an F5 blocking supply in 1701. Would the reserve (Battle) fleet be allowed to squash the F5?
By Bill Su (Wsu) on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 06:14 pm: Edit
Nick:
Is it possible to have the next round of errata include updates for Annex 756? Given how many rules distinguish between ships and non-ships, it would be nice if it were easier to tell that Monitors are ships but Auxs aren't.
Also, is a Military Convoy a Convoy, or is it completely separate (with a number of "coincidental" similarities)?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 02:27 am: Edit
Nick, How do the Kilingons upgrade the VP2 to VP3?
Does it take up a SB conversion?
If so is it by pair or singly?
Where is it converted, at the Capitol, where the pod was last on a ship, or at any SB? (those crafty logistics officers think of everything...)
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 12:54 pm: Edit
If the Romulans capture a Gorn planet on turn X. Can they drop 4 pdu/pgb's using 4 tugs on turn X+1?. Or do they have to drop a single pdu/pgb on turn X+1 etc?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 12:55 pm: Edit
Another question. Can a single Romulan ship using his cloak to escape from a fighting withdrawal battle?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 06:00 pm: Edit
Nick,
A question on Fighting Retreat and the sequence of play. If the defender decides to do a fighting retreat away from one of his planets and the attacker decides to retreat as well. Are all retreats out off the original hex conducted first, or is the defender's 'Fighting Retreat' round in the hex he retreated into conducted before retreating the attacker's forces from the original battle hex? The SOP does not say what order these are conducted in. Nor do the rules clearly state which is first. If all retreats are conducted from the original hex first, the retreat of the attacker just opened up a supply point that the defender must now retreat towards when he finishes his fighting retreat. He did not capture the hex as he retreated after the battle. That doesn't seem right but the timing of both players’ retreat may make it possible. (302.713) states that the defender retreats first. (302.75) states that retreating into a hex with no friendly units creates a new battle hex. (302.774) forces the reevaluation of supply after the fighting retreat is conducted. Nothing specifically says when the attacker conducts his retreat from the original battle hex.
If the attacker conducts his retreat after the defender’s initial retreat, but before his fighting retreat battle is conducted, I call dibs on the Tac Note (if it hasn’t been written yet).
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 06:16 pm: Edit
Daniel, I had posted that one up a few months ago, you do the defenders retreat before the attackers (cost me 2 garrison units)
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/3618.html?MondayMarch2420030142pm#POST79938
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 11:48 am: Edit
Tim, that's not what I'm refering too.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 12:28 pm: Edit
Okay, in long form. The Coalition is conducting its final assault on the Hydran capital. After loosing nearly all of their fixed defenses and most of their fighters, the Hydrans retreat from the capital (does this count as abandoning it?). The coalition, having a heavily damaged fleet, also retreats (trust me). Now, the only open hex around Hydrax is east of the capital and the Hydrans will be out of supply there. They decide to conduct a fighting retreat to the west. This will also leave them out of supply, but they will be closer to the Old Colonies. Move the Hydrans into their retreat hex. According to the rules, this creates a new battle hex. All activity in the old battle hex must be finished first so the Coalition ships retreat towards their respective supply points (Lyrans West to an other open hex, Klingons to the major planet next to Hydrax) but is this conducted before moving on to the Hydran fighting retreat hex?. Because if it is, the Hydran capital is still a Hydran supply point. The Hydrans would conduct their fighting retreat, re-evaluate supply (302.774), and retreat back to the Hydran capital because it is the closest open Hydran supply point. To make sure, the coalition has frigates in all hexes at range two too the west and south of the Hydran capital, so there is no other possible supply route.
If this is the way it works, and the Lyrans can keep a larger force to the west of the Hydran capital, the Hydrans can never fight through to the off map because they will always have the capital to retreat back too. While that will give the Hydrans some money, it will be pinned on map at the capital where there will be no remaining repair facilities. This could let the coalition drag the Hydrans back time and time again to be worn down by continuous coalition attack. Of course it could get the coalition killed as the Hydrans would still be in supply and be able to get their fighters back each round.
The basic question is, if you retreat from a supply point under the fighting retreat rules and your opponent retreats also, do you conduct the fighting retreat as a part of the original battle hex before the attacking player retreats, or do you treat it as a new battle hex and conduct the fighting retreat after everybody has retreated from the original hex? If you treat it as a new battle hex, you will likely be forced to retreat back to the original battle hex when the fighting retreat is done because you re-evaluate retreat priorities at that time.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 06:54 am: Edit
Oooo! that's a doozy. I have always included a patch to the fighting retreat rules that says that once a hex has been retreated from, it is excluded from future retreat, supply source calculations for that particular fleet. Mainly to stop a different kind of abuse. It may be that it is somehting I picked up from a ruling here but I think it is just house rules.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 07:17 am: Edit
Daniel.
Do note that the Hydrans will still be able to do field repair.
I think the Hydrans would have to declare an abandonment of the capital, thus making 0617 a secondary, isolated, supply grid. I think they can then retreat to the primary supply grid off-map to get around this. As the penalty for abandoning is that all the capital planets are devastated (IIRC), this is little loss.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 08:34 am: Edit
David, not if they have no supply route to the New primary grid. They'll be able to try and punch through on their own turn, but its easy to keep them there on the coalition turn. You are right about field rep, but that is expensive and any drain on their resources is a coalition advantage.
James, I haven't seen a ruling, which is why I'm asking Nick. While I don't think this spells doom for the Hydran, it should be clarified to make sure we're doing it right.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 09:56 am: Edit
On fighting retreat, see my question here (about 1/3 way down):
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/1451.html?1025589910
and Nick's response right under that.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 12:24 pm: Edit
That doesn't help, Tony. I need to know when the attacker retreats from the original hex in order to determine if the original hex becomes a valid retreat hex for the defender if he is conducting a fighting retreat. If everybody retreats out of the original hex before the defender does his fighting retreat, he may be forced to retreat back into the original hex if it is a valid supply point. If the fighting retreat is conducted before the attacker retreats his ships from the original hex, then it isn't a valid retreat hex for the defender and he would retreat to a different hex.
Both the example you provide and the one Tim Losberg provided do not answer that question. Do all units that are retreating from a battle hex retreat before a non-phasing player fleet conducts its fighting retreat, or do you conduct the non-phasing player’s fighting retreat before the phasing player conducts his retreat from the original battle hex? The order that these two actions take place in affects where the non-phasing player may retreat too after he conducts the one round of battle in the fighting retreat battle hex.
If I may ask so, I would like to wait for Nick's response before anyone else posts any more comments on my question to prevent any confusion.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 12:40 pm: Edit
Daniel, I don't think all units must retreat before a fighting retreat is resolved. I believe that it is resolve a fighting retreat and then go back to the original hex and resolve the rest of its battles, the reason is that otherwise it would be possible to have 2 fighting retreats into the same hex, then which side fights at BIR 10 and which at BIR 0?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 04:44 pm: Edit
Question on raids:
The Hydrans successfully raid hex 114 on turn 7 Alliance. They otherwise have no ships in that province. The Lyrans do have ships in the province (but not in hex 114).
On turn 8 Coalition, the Lyrans don't collect money from the province (I believe).
On turn 8 Alliance, the only ships in that province are Lyran. Do the Hydrans collect money from the disrupted province (since they successfully raided it), or does the Lyran presence on turn 8 Coalition reconvert it to a captured province?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 04:58 pm: Edit
TonyB, this is what I found,
________________________________________
Quote:
(314.27) PROVINCE DISRUPTION: If the raiding ship survives the battle without being crippled or forced to withdraw, the province in question is considered "disrupted" for the Defender’s next player-turn (and the Attacker’s next Economic Phase). This could mean (if a supply path is open) that a captured province would actually produce income for the original owner and the four-turn period for long term capture (438.1) would have to restart and the invader who captured the province gets no income from it on his next turn.
________________________________________
That's what you are asking right?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 06:55 pm: Edit
Edward,
In order to force the defender to conduct a fighting retreat, the attacker must occupy most (if not all) surrounding hexes. There for it is statistically unlikely (though possible if he has really messed up) that the phasing player will be unable to retreat into a hex that is in supply if the non-phasing is unable to do so. More importantly, if a given hex with enemy units in it will allow a player to enter supply exists, the retreating player must use that hex for his fighting retreat as the fighting retreat rules only let you ignore (302.734), not the entire retreat priority rules. They don't let you ignore supply requirements of (302.733). To allow the attacker to do a fighting retreat in the same direction as the defender requires that both players would be out of supply from any other hex that they might retreat too. How often is that going to happen?
By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 03:34 am: Edit
if you occupy all of the surrounding hexes then they would all be eliminated by criteria 4 and therefor none are considered to be eliminated and a fighting retreat is not needed
remember that a fighting retreat only takes place if a player chooses to ignore retreat priority 4, if the player doesn't choose to retreat to a place that priority 4 would otherwise eliminate it's not a fighting retreat
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 06:20 am: Edit
David, that is correct unless the non-phasing player has equal number of ship equivalents in one of those hexes to the phasing player. Which will make it a valid retreat hex under priority 4. But that's not what I said in my original question. "Now, the only open hex around Hydrax is east of the capital and the Hydrans will be out of supply there." That gives the non-phasing (Hydran) player a hex to retreat into under priority 4. Instead he chooses a fighting retreat (ignoring priority 4) and tries to head toward the old colonies. If the Coalition player also retreats, does that force the Hydrans back into the capital after their one round battle in the fighting retreat hex, or is the fighting retreat fought before the coalition retreat, allowing the Hydrans to continue towards the Old Colonies?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 10:29 am: Edit
On the Raid/Disruption question...
I read the rule, but the reason for my question is deeper. Maybe I'm just now realizing the full significance of the rule, but I hope I'm wrong...
My original interpretation of the raid rules was that (basically) a successful raid counted as a ship being in the raid hex. It disrupts enemy control, asserts friendly control, etc. However, saying that the province is disrupted for both the oponents next turn AND your next turn with no possible recourse (ie, you can't kick out the province raider) seems a bit much.
Examples:
- All bases in province 1118 in Hydran space have long been destroyed. The Klingons have a garrison in 1118. The Hydrans successfully raid the garrison, forcing it to retreat to 1217. The Klingons don't get income for the province on their next turn. However, with a normal ship attacking & doing the same thing, the Klingons would have the opportunity to kill/drive off the Hydran ship & reclaim the province before the Hydrans next turn - ie, a Hydran attack would only influence the following Coalition turn, not Coalition + Alliance.
- All bases in province 1118 in Hydran space have long been destroyed. There are no Hydran or Coalition ships in this province. The Klingons successfully raid the province on their turn (but don't move any ships into the province). On the Hydran turn, do they get disrupted income from the province, or no income? If the raid counts as a ship garrison (that can't be attacked/removed), then the province is now Klingon.
On the Klingon turn, the rule says that the the province is still affected on the attackers next economics phase. Do the Klingons actually get income from the province (since no Hydran ships were moved into it, the only influence on the province is the previously successful raid)?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 11:20 am: Edit
John Colacito, thought I remembered answering that. Of course, I remember answering several questions, but don't see the answers now, so maybe I didn't hit the POST button enought times.
Rule (203.731) specifically says the force in question must be out of supply in the ensuing combat phase in order to allow the reserve force to open supply. So if they are in supply from a partial grid, you cannot use the reserve force to open supply to the main grid. In your example, the force is ontop of a battle station, and anything stacked on a base is automatically in supply. So, since they are in supply for combat, you cannot use a reserve force to open another supply line to them.
Bill Su, I will put Annex (756) on my list of stuff for the next errata update, which will probably be after MPA goes to press.
Tim Losberg, the cost listed must be for one, since you are adding (to one pod) half a fighter factor, and the SIT cost is 1+1. So a pair of pods must cost 2+2 since the pair adds one fighter factor between them. I imagine could do both pods at a single starbase as "a conversion" to a carrier group under (433.14) but note the cost (4 EP), and this probably requires them to be on a ship (tug).
Jim LaForm, you can drop four PDUs/PGBs with four tugs, but it will take a turn for them to activate (508.32).
A single Romulan ship can use cloaked evasion. Rule (306.11) says to first evade the ships you can under the normal rules (in this case no ships), then for each ship with a cloak, roll a die and if successful evade it as well (in this case roll for your only ship).
Danial Knipfer. Retreating is not abandoning under (511.6), for that you must declare you are actually abandoning the capital under that rule. As to the order, let me think on it. I seem to remember the ruling being that you conduct both defender and attacker retreats before resolving any fighting retreats, but let me look. The question about two fighting retreats going to the same place has been answered before (it is possible under wierd circumstances). I seem to remember that you then fight one round with BOTH sides at BIR 0 (since both are retreating and trying to generaly avoid contact), and then do another retreat for both sides. This would then indicate that both retreats out of the hex are done before any fighting retreat (sending the Hydrans back to the capital), but I want to look at this whole thing some more.
Tony Barns, as Scott posted, the rule says that the province is "disrupted" for the defender's next turn, and the attacker's next economic phase. So the Lyrans get nothing on their turn, and if the Hydrans have a valid path to the province they would collect the 1 EP.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 12:31 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 02:28 pm: Edit
Thanks for the answers Nick. A quick question though:
In your above answers, you answered a question regarding if a single romulan ship could use cloaked evasion to avoid a fighting retreat battle, with
"A single Romulan ship can use cloaked evasion. Rule (306.11) says to first evade the ships you can under the normal rules (in this case no ships), then for each ship with a cloak, roll a die and if successful evade it as well (in this case roll for your only ship). "
However on August 28th, you answered a question:
"Tim Losberg, there is no withdrawal option before a fighting retreat battle round, for either phasing or non-phasing players. Note that (302.771) says the retreater "must fight..." the blocker, which essentially means the blocker must fight the retreater. "
These answers would seem to contradict each other. Sorry about the nitpicking, but this situation has come up a couple times in our game. Thanks.
By Bill Su (Wsu) on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 11:13 pm: Edit
AO 318.6 says uncrippled size class 3 Archeo-Tholian ships get an extra defensive factor in Y183 and later. Should the rule also include size class 2 ships? What about MB/BS/BATS/SB? They're non-ship units, but I assume they get upgraded to include snares in SFB.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 12:22 am: Edit
Paul, I didn't realize this second question was specifically about fighting retreat, I thought it was about combat in general. So, in general, a single Rom ship can roll for cloaked evasion, but, in a fighting retreat there is no evasion step, so no cloaked evasion either. Sorry for the confusion.
Bill, the rule says size 3, so it must only be size 3.
The only size 2 archeo ship (DN) could get the snare in SFB, but it can also get full web casters instead of just snares. F&E does not yet have these units (DNsnare/DNwebcaster, maybe in a future expansion), but it does have a heavy DN with web casters instead (DHW).
Tholian bases get snares in SFB, but in F&E they get the web rule all the time, which makes them MUCH tougher than normal bases, they simply don't need any more defensive bonuses! The F&E web rule is supposed to represent the "web wedding cake" of SFB. If you look at this in SFB, there is no room for the base to use it's snare at all so long as the wedding cake is up (snare can only be used adjacent to the base, and the inner web layer is there blocking snare deployment), and in F&E the web doesn't go down until the base does, so there is never an opportunity for the base to use the snare anyway. You could say the web rule includes the snare effect for bases already.
Some size 4 ships got snares in SFB, but don't get the F&E benefit since they are small ships.
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 06:12 pm: Edit
(412.1)
• I have a (Kzinti) fleet on a devastated friendly (Kzinti) planet. Would this fleet be considered “in supply” by virtue of being on a “friendly planet?”
(508.16) and (508.211) ?
• Can reserve fleet move to defend an RDU? In other words does the act eliminating an RDU constitute a battle hex?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 07:23 pm: Edit
Nick, I wrote up a Tac Note based on your answer to my question on fighting retreat above.
"By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 11:20 am:"
You said you wanted to go over the issue some more. Please let me know when you do. SPP needs to know your final ruling so he can grade it. Thanks.
By Christoffer Eriksen (Toffer) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 07:00 pm: Edit
Two questions:
First - Where do I post a request that a particular conversion's cost be re-evaluated?
Second - Are there plans to include the FireHawk's newfound quick-change modularity into F&E?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 07:18 pm: Edit
While no way official, I can answer these somewhat...
re: #1 We did a ton of this in the Development of Advanced Operations. Does anything really need to be changed? You're going to need a really strong case.
re: #2. Newfound quick-change modularity? Your talking about R10-variants right?
Under the Proposal's section, "NCA" was where we were talking about NCA-variants. Go look there I'd say. But I don't remember anything in R10 about being as fast to change as Sparrowhawks.
So they can be converted during production, but not by spending a movement point.
Here:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/4110.html?1058819187
By Christoffer Eriksen (Toffer) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 07:39 pm: Edit
In reverse order:
re #2 - oops, I mis-read the paragraph. FireHawks can use most SparrowHawk modules, but there is nothing that says that they can be changed (merely converted).
re #1 - The problem I have is with the SPV, which is from AO. It's conversion cost is out of line with the other 'modular-base' carrier conversions. [SKB, SPB, and SUB. All are 1+fighters]
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 09:24 pm: Edit
Gods........we went over that about a thousand times. It's right, really. Please don't start it all over again.
By Christoffer Eriksen (Toffer) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 10:04 pm: Edit
Then please explain it to me.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 10:13 pm: Edit
SVC explains the Romulan SPV:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/197.html?SundayFebruary2420020326pm
Q2609
By Christoffer Eriksen (Toffer) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 10:36 pm: Edit
I'm sorry, I asked for an explanation. That is a statement.
This is a request for an explanation as to why the cost for an SPB to SPV conversion is 2+0, when the comparable conversions are either 0+F (for CVH conversions) or 1+F (for 'Hawk CV conversions).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 10:40 pm: Edit
Christoffer, when SVC says "that's the way it is" that is an exlanation.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 09:40 am: Edit
C Eriksen, I just assumed that it was because SVC felt that no SPB > SPV conversion should be done, it should be allowed but be an economically stupid thing to do. Hence the cost that makes it a pretty dopey conversion to actually do.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 11:35 am: Edit
Look at it this way. Converting B mods to V mods is expensive because they are in effect, totally rebuilding them to hold the heavy fighters. It's better to just build new SPVs and use the SPBs to back up the SUBs and CNVs that you've built.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 11:41 am: Edit
You're paying to get a single squadron instead of 1.33 squadrons. The logical cost of zero that so many cite would make it too good a deal, And would be wrong since you do have to buy new modules.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 11:57 am: Edit
So far as I know (and what do I know?) the FH doesn't have a quick-change capability, but a conversion capability.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 12:22 pm: Edit
Toffer... one word
Doctrine
By Christoffer Eriksen (Toffer) on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 09:25 pm: Edit
Steve,
I certainly agree, a 'logical' cost of zero isn't given that new modules are involved.
I would state however, that the 'logical' cost should be 1. As that is the cost of a B or V module(s), either new or by conversion.
Jimi,
Er, what?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 09:05 am: Edit
Nick,
Question on conversions. Under the current rules a ship in an inactive fleet with no SB available in its deployment zone can move to an SB for conversion and then move back to the original deployment zone. This normally refers only to the Klingon Eastern Fleet. Can a ship in an inactive fleet move to the capital to receive a major conversion, even if that deployment zone has a SB, and then return to its original deployment zone?
I'm getting ready to start a game and what I want to do is this. Move a Lyran CA/CL from the Enemy's Blood Fleet to the capital, by Strategic movement if necessary, on turn 1 for conversion to a DN/BC on turn two. Then move the new DN/BC right back to the Hydran boarder. Would this be legal with in the current rules, or does the Enemy's Blood SB prevent me from doing this?
I'm sorry, but I don't have my rule book with me at the moment. If some one else knows what rule lets me move inactive ships from a fleet with no SB to an SB for conversion, please let me know. I'll try to find it tonight when I'm at home if no one else finds it first.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 11:44 am: Edit
I have been busy with work, and car breakdowns. I should be able to get to the questions this weekend though.
Sorry for the delay,
Nick
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 06:56 pm: Edit
If the Feds were to go to limited war status prior to turn 7 (for example, a Coalition violation of Marquis space), would this enable the Klingons (or even the Romulans) to begin conducting pre-war raids against the Federation?
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 10:11 am: Edit
I admit it. I let the Hydrans get out of hand. They built a second starbase over their homeworld. I attacked them with a battleforce full of war cruisers and the damage destroyed every ship in the battle with points left over.
What happens to the extra points?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 01:02 pm: Edit
Chris, they become Plus points on the next Battle Round (or in Pursuit if you retreat)
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 05:38 pm: Edit
Of course, if you have no cripples, then there isn't a pursuit round...
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 08:12 pm: Edit
The rule in refrence to my question on conversions of inactive ships is (600.322). Thanks Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 08:48 pm: Edit
John Colacito, the status of the planet does not matter. Any ships stacked with a friendly planet are always in supply, see (410.4). Of course, you have to own the planet (i.e. it has to be part of your supply grid).
Does attacking an RDU constitute a battle hex for purposes of being the destination of a reserve fleet? Sure, seeing as how the RDU is there because the planet belongs to, or reverted to, the original owner. If an enemy force moves to the planet, there would have to be a battle, you have two sides, the fleet, and the planet (which can be re-devestated, which requires a battle), so a reserve fleet could be sent.
Daniel Knipfer, In F&E2K we added a rule in (302.733) that says the hex you are retreating from does not count as a supply point for purposes of that retreat. It would make sense to me to extend that rule to say that if you have a chain of retreats (retreat + fighting retreat + fighting retreat + fighting retreat, etc...), any previous hexes retreated from are not considered supply points for purposes of further retreats (since all of those hexes are ones you were trying to get away from).
So in your case, the Hydrans invoke fighting retreat and leave the capital hex, the Coalition then also retreats with their option (never capturing the hex), and when the Hydrans finish their fighting retreat battle in the hex adjacent to the capital and retreat again, they do not have to count the capital as a supply point since that is where they are originally retreating from, and thus they can continue to the old colonies and not be constantly bounced back.
I will propose this as errata, to go into the next master errata file. Does that make sense to everyone? Does anyone see any new problems with this?
Christoffer Erickson, there is an F&E proposals topic for any sorts of proposals including new rules, rules changes and/or changes to costs of ships/items/conversions, etc..., but as noted you will have to make a Really Really good case for a change if something is already in print. Also, since SVC posted that 2 EP is correct, it is unlikely to be changed, since he is the only one who can change it.
And right, the Firehawks can be converted under the normal conversion rules, but not using the sparrowhawk convert during move rules.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 08:56 pm: Edit
Daniel, that rule does allow for multi-ship conversons, and nearly all (if not all) of those are major conversions, so it must allow you to send major conversions to the capital starbase if you are doing a major conversion as the one conversion per turn from the inactive fleet.
Derek, rule (314.31) prevents the Romulans from assigning any ships to the raid pool until turn #7. Rule (314.35) says the Klingons may raid the Feds only if they do not attack the Feds on turn #7, so it would seem to be a similar limit. (i.e. no pre-war raids until turn #7 at the earliest).
Chris Proper, yes they are plus points, but if there is no further combat round then the count for nothing...
By Christoffer Eriksen (Toffer) on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 02:02 am: Edit
Nick,
You miss-spelled Eriksen :]
Also, I was hoping for some justification. I think the answer may be 'game-balance' but I'm not sure. Personally, while I play Romulan, I think the SPV was a poor idea for a conversion anyway rule, as it is an exception piled onto an exception. In my opinion, the SPBV/SPV combo may have been a good answer, but it's too late now.
later, I may or may not be on this board before my honeymoon. back for shure on 10/8.
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 02:38 am: Edit
Nick, thanks for the answers, now here’s a few more.
(508.23) and (508.235)
The Kzinti capital (1401) is captured by the Coalition and they deploy several PDUs on Kzintai Major itself but not on any other planets in the hex. During Op-Move the Coalition forgets to leave garrison ships in the hex. According to (508.235) I assume that the other 7 planets would revert to Kzinti control.
Q: Can the Coalition re-conquer the other capital planets by retrograding back to Kzintai Major?
I see nothing in the rules that prohibits the retro but it doesn’t seem right that the planets get recaptured in a non-combat phase/situation. Of course the alternative creates a rather awkward situation in which the capital hex would belong to both the Coalition and the Kzinti…in such I case I have another question:
Q2: Assuming that 1401 can be partially owned by both sides who is considered the defender/attacker if/when combat later occurs in the hex? This is obviously important for purposes of splitting the fleet into static/mobile, getting to see the opponent’s fleet setup first, etc.
-------------------------------------
Unrelated to the above, see (302.231) and (302.71)
Q3: Can the defender also retreat from a base-hex where he declined approach and the attacker retreated?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 02:42 pm: Edit
Wow, good questions there Sandro, interesting situation you have there.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 03:10 pm: Edit
Those other planets all have RDUs on them. During retrograde, there isn't any provision for combat, so I'd assume they stay Kzinti (the rule gives provisions for this - seperate supply grids with satellite stockpiles built up).
Also, I didn't think PDUs could garrison (although I'm far from sure). If that's the case, all planets would revert to Kzinti
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 11:16 pm: Edit
TonyB, PDUs can garrison planets, in fact, it makes the planet in question 'friendly' to the PDU player (410.4).
As for 1401, Kzintai stays Klingon while the others revert to Kzinti for income [and since 1401 is adjacent to the Barony, the Kzinti gets the money to use as well (IIRC)].
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 12:38 am: Edit
I think that really needs to be looked at.
If a hex can act as a supply point and a retrograde point for both sides at the same time that is severly messed up.
By Christoffer Eriksen (Toffer) on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 04:28 am: Edit
Nick,
The proposals topic is locked.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 08:59 am: Edit
Christoffer, look down farther on the main F&E list - there is a Proposals Forum, with the various proposals each given their own thread. It should be working.
The old Proposals board was shut down when it got so clogged with a bazillion new proposals, and the new format was set up to replace it.
By Christoffer Eriksen (Toffer) on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 03:09 pm: Edit
Aha, and it even has a 'create new' button...
Thanks Kevin.
And, sorry for the clutter.
-Toffer
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 05:20 pm: Edit
Nick,
I understand that (600.322) will let me send ships to the capital for a major conversion, but will it specifically let me do so from an inactive fleet if that inactive fleet has access to an SB in its own deployment area? Can I send a CA/CL from the Enemy's Blood Fleet (Hydran Border) to the capital for conversion to a DN/BC before the Enemy's Blood Fleet becomes active and return it after conversion? Can I send the Fed 6th Fleet (Rom Border) DN back to the capital on turn 8 for conversion to a CVA? These areas have their own SB and can do their own conversions, but not (obviously) a major conversion.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 11:39 pm: Edit
OK, reading Advanced Small Unit combat, (318.7)
Does it count the # of ships in the hex (3) or in the battle?
Here is the situation:
D6D+4E4 vs DG+DE (don't ask)
1st round:
E4 gets crippled, 5ftrs die
2nd round:
I then can do D6D+E4+E4crip vs DG+DE
Then go to Advanced Small Unit combat.
Right? It is (going to advanced small unit combat) each and every round to see if it qualifies.
Craig thinks there is an AAR,I don't
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 12:31 am: Edit
Another question.
Situation.
Battles in 1617, 1517, 1518
Attacker smashes a group at 1518
Defender does a fighting retreat to 1417.
Who chooses the next battle? The Attacker (as the attacker chooses battle hexes), or whoever is conducting the fighting retreat?
Because it will either be:
Attacker chooses 1518, defender retreats to 1417 (fighting retreat)
Defender does 1417, retreats to 13xx
Attacker chooses 1617 then
Or
Attacker chooses 1518, defender retreats to 1417 (Fighting retreat)
Attacker then chooses 1617, defender retreats to 1517
Attacker then chooses 1517, defender retreats to 1417
Attacker chooses 1417
See what I want to do as the attacker is the 2nd one because it'll get some units into 1417 (as there is none now).
I see nothing in (307.77x) Fighting Retreat that says that Fighting Retreater gets to choose the Battle Hex resolution outside the normal process.
P.S. Craig, if you see problems with how I posted these, please speak up.
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 01:29 pm: Edit
No problems in how you worded it.
However, I realized it wont apply to our game (see my comments in our topic) due to the Ship Counts involved in each of the hexes.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 03:48 pm: Edit
Can I send a reserve fleet to save an Orion Pirate being hunted down by my enemy?
(Federation hunts down a Pirate within their territory, Klingons send a reserve fleet to save the Orion, and now have a forward fleet deep inside Federation territory ready to strike next turn.)
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 07:29 am: Edit
Ouch. That just sounds like and abusive idea Kevin. If Nick declares that legal, that's going to spark one hell of a debate.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 09:35 am: Edit
I get dibs on the tac note, regardless on how this one falls!
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 07:36 pm: Edit
Couple of questions before we kick of 'A VeryEnglish War' again:
Firstly - 602.43 the federation home & 3rd fleets are allowed to 'maneuver' within federation territory. The home fleet includes 3 mobile bases. Is the federation allowed to set these up, or does maneuver just mean move ships etc.
The coaltion has fleets at 0903, 1202, 1304 and 1505. The alliance has ships at 1504 and 1403 and 1105. During the allaince economic phase can the alliance move the EP's generated from province 1104,1105,1204,1205,1305 to the capital, or is the province cut off as the Kzinti have no supply path to any hex of the province?
Thanks
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 10:13 pm: Edit
On reserve fleets rescuing Orion ships: of course not! The reserve rules clearly state that the destination battle hex must have friendly or allied units involved. A marauding Orion pirate is neither friendly nor allied. A leased Orion pirate ship is a different matter, as that is considered one of your ships for the turn...
I will get to the questions this weekend, (or Friday if I get a chance).
Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 08:13 am: Edit
I can do another question before I go to work.
RE. capital hex without enough garrison units.
Rule (508.23) says that you need one garrison unit (PDU or ship) per planet. Rule (508.235) says if you do not have enough such units in a capital multi-planet hex, then the non-garrisoned planets revert to the original owner, and each such planet is its own individual partial supply grid.
Now, if any unit enters the capital later, it becomes a battle hex, Alliance units would fight the PDUs, Coalition units would attack the RDUs, and possibly redevestate the ungarrisoned planets (a boring battle hex in this case, but a battle hex none the less).
Rule (206.23) says retrograde movement cannot form a new battle hex, so I can only conclude that if a capital hex is partially owned by both sides (which is possible as above), then neither side can retrograde there since it is also still a "contested" hex for both sides, and you can only retrograde to "secure" areas.
More answers after work.
Nick
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 10:15 am: Edit
This is broken in two part
1) What is the Shipyard of a race is location on ...is it on the Capital Planet ....or on one of the Starbases that is inm the same box with the Capital Planet
2)Using the Hydran Capital Hex.... If all the other Planets in that Hex is control by Ships and/or Ground units type....and the the Planet/Base has the Shipyard, HAD NOT been totally taking out ( with One ground Unit still a lived)....would the Shipyard be in used to build any Ships ( based on if the money is at hand)
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 10:50 am: Edit
The shipyard is not 'on' any one specific planet from my understanding. It is not a targetable unit. It is there, fully functional until 1: all defending units have retreated from the planet, 2: all bases/pdu's have been destroyed, and 3: all planets are devestated.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 11:10 am: Edit
so what you are saying....if you attacked the Hydran Capital Hex and take out all but one ground unit on the capital planet .... you can keep the Hydran player from building a new shipyard off Map.... and keep the hex and/or hexes around the Capital with ships station on thoses hexes. You can keep the money from getting into the Shipyard so the Hydran from building new ships .... So you block the Capital from the Off Map area and they CAN NOT strat building a new shipyard or get the IC and the 50 Ept for the fall of the Hydran Capital
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 11:18 am: Edit
why I'm asking because this have happen in a game we are playing now.....and the game have been put on hold till we can find out about this... and yes we know to take the Capital is part of the Victory Conditions ...But the player has got a good point here... you can block the building of the new shipyard in the off map area and keep the Hydran old shipyard bottled up till you are ready to finish off the Hyrdan ... This way you KILL all new Construction....His words "the Hydran are dead as a race till the new yard is builded in the off map area..... Is he right or wrong... its is a good idea myself
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 11:30 am: Edit
Michael the Hydran can abandon his capital and start setting up a new shipyard anytime he wants.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 11:39 am: Edit
All's the Hydran player has to do is abandon the capital (still keeping the planet as a partial supply grid btw) and start a new shipyard offmap.
If he really wanted to, the Hydran (or Kzinti or any race as a matter of face) can immediately abandon their capital and start a new shipyard offmap. Though why they would ever do so is beyond me =)
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 11:46 am: Edit
still with forces in it ...I was thinking no forces in the capital....before you can start building a new one.......so with forces in it they can still build a new one...good can you send me the rule number so I can proof that point to the player....but what about the IC and the 50Epts...would that stop the Hydran from getting them.....I forgot that abandon rule, cant hide it..and the part of the IC and the 50 it say Destoyed Capital...right or wrong on that part
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 11:49 am: Edit
Jimi I feel the same way about abandon my Capital and start a new one....( no sport in that)....But this is the 1st time we are using the IC and the 50Epts rule ...need to know on that part if they get it or not
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 11:54 am: Edit
My rulebooks are out in my car at the moment, so don't have the numbers handy. During lunch I'll go to my car and pick em up and pop you the exact rulenumbers =)
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 02:19 pm: Edit
Thanks Jimi I will not be back on this sat morning (Day off)But I think I saw it somewhere about the IC and the 50Epts they get it if the Capital was taking or Burn or both ....but cant remember where I saw it....I'm having toulbe getting stuff for F&E CO take me 5 weeks to get and just now got AO Thursday after driving to a new Hobby Store in Tennessee. Hoping this Store is good in keeping their words on Ordering stuff...That is why I'm behind time on the NEW rules ...Thanks again Jimi
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 10:15 pm: Edit
…if a capital hex is partially owned by both sides (which is possible as above)…
Thought I’d re-post and update the second, as of yet, unanswered part of my previous question particularly after reading your above ruling:
• Who would be considered the defender/attacker when combat later occurs in such a partially owned hex?
This will happen once Kzinti forces move into 1401 and Coalition forces either reserve or react into the hex. This is obviously important for purposes of splitting the fleet into static/mobile, getting to see the opponent’s fleet setup first, etc.
• Also related to your ruling would the Kzinti be able to immediately collect the EP from the partially owned grid? Yes (508.235) designates such planets as being partial grids but can they connect/send EP to the off-map?
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 06:41 am: Edit
Re:Shipyard and capital hex.
Just to point out that you cannot get a situation where an active shipyard is in a "contested" capital hex.
Either you take the hex (shipyard destroyed), or the attacker must retreat (shipyard OK).
Contested capitals can only occur after the initial conquest.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 10:20 am: Edit
ok I understand that......But like say you took OUT all the ground units on the Planets in that Capital Hex... But you kill all the Ground units but one on the Capital Planets....all that is left in that hexs are your ships and the ground units you have put on the other planets....is that ground that you got to retteat from that Capital Hexs....I understand that you retreat with your ships ...then what about the ground units that ARE on the other planets...are that dead or live units....( and yes I know that the Defender will come back into the hex and try to take back those planets).......that is what I'm trying to clear up .....the words "abandon".."captured".."destroyed".. has dropped up in other rules based on this ... To me its a circle and it follows those 3 key words I have pointed out....So what word fix the ruling on this
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 10:33 am: Edit
the rule in AO say..(525>316) Hydran IC: part A; To reflect this unique ship, the Hydran player has the option to produce the IC at any time after the originnnnal capital is DESTROYED.
442,4 HYDRAN TREASURY
(442.41) To reflect this, on the first Hydran production phase after the Hydran have no ships (including auxiliaries, convoys and any other unit except a base or PDU) on the map AND after the capital has been CAPTURED by the Coalition, the Hydran player receives 30 EPs added to his treasury....
from those to rule by doing that attack on the Hydran Capital Hex and setting up ground units on those planets above and leave only ONE hydran gound unit alive on the Capital planet ...that hex WOULD not be Control or Captured .... so in a way the 30EPS and the IC would not happen ....that is what I see..plus added info from other players ....that is what I like to be clear up more
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 11:31 am: Edit
The defender is the player with garrison units in the capital hex. If the coalition destroys all ground units in the Kzinti capital hex, and doesn't leave enough garrison units, some planets will be partial grids with RDUs. However, the presence of coalition units in the hex means they are the defender for purposes of the capital hex combat rules.
As far as those one-planet partial grids connecting to other grids, obviously not, of course not. If they were connected to the off map grid (which is by definition the main grid), then they wouldn't be partial grids, now would they? A partial grid is BY DEFINITION, any grid not connected to the main grid (and the main grid is the one connected to the capital or the off map). So normally the capital is by default in the main grid but when the capital itself is divided up by enemy action, rule (508.238) specifically designates each non-garrisoned capital planet as a partial grid in this situation, and so each such planet is its own separate partial grid, and since each is a partial grid each is obviously not connected to the main (off map) grid. If they were connected, they wouldn't be partial.
Richard Abbot is right, the shipyard would be destroyed by this process. Think about it. You cannot have this weird situation of some ungarrisoned planets if you leave a PDU on the capital planet, or other planet in the hex. The attacker MUST offer a battle if any PDUs remain, if he doesn't offer battle then he must retreat, see (511.5) and the sub-rules. You CANNOT have the defender retreat, and the attacker leave a PDU on the capital and have the battle over. The battle is NOT over until all ground units are destroyed. At that point (all ground destroyed, defender retreats), the shipyard is destroyed. Now, you can leave some planets in the capital ungarrisoned, and it would be a partial grid with a RDU, but the shipyard is gone, the capital HEX is CAPTURED (even if it contains ungarrisoned planets), and the owning race can start a new capital if they wish. The various hydran effects would happen when the capital hex is captured, even if some planets are not garrisoned.
Remember, a residual defense unit is NOT a unit, and would not stop the Hydran treasury thing from happening.
Now, if the Hydran capital is devestated and cut off, but NOT captured, i.e. if the coalition retreats all units out of the hex after combat, then it is still in hydran control and the shipyard is still there. You have to capture the hex to destroy the shipyard, and if the coaliton leaves ship there after combat then the hex is captured even if you don't have enough garrison units for every planet. In such a situation (having a nearly useless shipyard), the Hydrans could always abandon their capital in order to start a new shipyard (511.6), but this is not without other consequences.
Once the hydran capital is captured (either captured or abandoned) and have no other units on map (442.41), then they get the treasury bonus. With the shipyard destroyed (525.316-A), they can build the IC.
John Colacito, yes, in any battle hex both sides have a retreat option.
Daniel Knipfer, yes, even if an inactive area has its own starbase, if you want to do a major conversion (and you are allowed to do major conversions), then obviously you must send the ship to the capital hex instead of its own starbase, but this is the only conversion you can do from that inactive fleet for that turn (600.322). My point was that since the rule allows carrier group conversions, which are generally major conversions, it must allow any major conversion, which means using the capital hex starbase, and it must allow this for any inactive fleet whether it has a local starbase or not.
Scott Tenhoff, it has to be per battle hex, since small scale combat is supposed to replace the standard combat sequence. So at the start of combat you see if small combat applies, and then proceed accordingly. Using small scale combat every round totall defeats the purpose, which is to resolve small combat situations in only one round instead of several.
(318.7) is essentially optional anyway, you don't have to invoke it every time you have small groups of ships in normal combat hexes, except for raid combat where it must be used to resolve the combat in one round.
Your other question I answered recently. If fighting retreat happens, then you conduct the fighting retreat battle next (it is really a continuation of the current battle hex you are retreating from) before resuming the normal sequence of the attacker picking the next battle hex. Fighting retreat is part of retreat which is part of the original battle hex. Only in weird situations will the fighting retreat battle last more than one round, like when the retreaters go to a base or planet (turning the fighting retreat battle into a normal battle hex). Even in this case you do the fighting retreat battle hex next before the attacker picks another battle hex to resolve.
James Southcott, see (600.321) which clearly states that mobile bases assigned to inactive fleets cannot be set up until the fleet is released.
If you have no supply path connecting two sections, then they are separate grids, see (413.4), and the definition of a supply grid in (413.1). A grid is connected by valid supply paths, if no supply path, then there is no connection.
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 03:04 pm: Edit
Nick, good stuff man, thanks.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 03:50 pm: Edit
Thank too on my part... I see that now thanks again. I understand that and it clear up a hang for the game we are running.....
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 11:51 am: Edit
Nick, follow up on the reserve fleet ruling.
I can't remember how long ago, but you ruled that a reserve fleet could be sent to a neutral planed that is being attacked. is this now invalid?
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 04:53 pm: Edit
I was wondering, if a single ship carrier is in the formation bonus position, would its fighters/PF's be directed on at 2:1 or 3:1 I don't think attrition units qualify because they are not ships but I want to check.
By Martin Read (Amethyst_Cat) on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 04:40 am: Edit
Surely directing on fighters just screams "Burn my hulls! Please! I want to go bankrupt!"?
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 06:35 am: Edit
Thanks for your responses to my last questions - got a few more
If a fleet is out of supply at the start of the opponents opmove, comes back into supply during the execution of opmove (due to the movement of fleets/reserves). Then, because other combat hexes are conducted first goes back out of supply, so that when it comes round to the fleet in questions combat it is out of supply.
A fleet starts it's opponents opmove out of supply so cannot use extended reaction. During the opmove movement of fleets result in a valid supply path. Can it now use extended reaction?
Finally - in order to get salavage the ship destroyed has to have a valid supply path at the time it is destroyed. Just looking for confirmation that was the result of the Origins discussions.
Thanks
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 07:48 am: Edit
Just checking and to appeal your answer...question asked by James
Firstly - 602.43 the federation home & 3rd fleets are allowed to 'maneuver' within federation territory. The home fleet includes 3 mobile bases. Is the federation allowed to set these up, or does maneuver just mean move ships etc.
You answered -
James Southcott, see (600.321) which clearly states that mobile bases assigned to inactive fleets cannot be set up until the fleet is released.
This may get confusing -
Either the fleets are active, but can only move within Federation Space - therefore the MB's should be available?
or
The fleets are inactive, but are allowed to move within Federation Space (and no MB's).
I know it's a special rule (the word maneuver isn't very useful), but logically, I would have thought the former was correct, as normally inactive fleets CAN'T move (other than upto 6 on anti-piracy duty and 1 ship to a SB outside it's area), but Fleets CAN be active, and are only permitted to move within certain areas (be it friendly or enemy areas).
So in a nutshell, you either have a special rule with restricitions (Fleet isn't released, but can move, but only within Fed space) or a normal rule with a restriction (Fleet is released, but can only move within Fed space). The latter makes much more sense!
(Also, having the fleet inactive also has the problems that bases within the Home Fleet area can't be upgraded!)
Thanks
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 08:23 am: Edit
As an aside, this ruling has major ramifications for a Fed which is not attacked turn 7, as the current status effectively disallows the Feds from fortifying except with newly built MBs and renders the home fleet MBs almost useless. By the time they are "released" for deployment, the Roms and Klingons are already swarming over the borders, and there is no time for any fortifications except at the homeworld or at locations where the tug/MB will get instantly killed.
I would like to support Paul's appeal, and I have to say that I was shocked over the orignal ruling. Here are several things to consider...
Argument 1) The very word "manoever" implies that I can move a MB and set it up where I want. If I can't set up the MB, it effectively means my MBs cannot manoever, as it would be pointless moving them away from the capital.
Argument 2)If these home-fleet mobile bases were actually set-up at the capital, you would *have* to allow me to deploy them elsewhere otherwise they are prevented from "manoevering". Furthermore, you would have to allow me to set them up at that location, else the status at the end of the "manoeuver" is different from the start, which would be totally illogical - it is no longer a "manoeuver", but a change in status.
Why should non set-up MBs, which are easier to relocate than set-up MBs (do not require a turn to dismantle), be prevented from being set-up then?
Argument 3- the strongest). Setting up a MB is in itself a manouever. All you are doing is placing it in orbit, and adding the positional stabilisers. You then go fetch the modules and patch them on. At no point are you doing anything except a manouver.
Argument 4). If I cannot set up my MBs, i.e. convert them from inactive to set-up - a status change, then I should not be able to enact any status changes on my ships. I.e. I cannot do any conversions on any ships on the home fleet, as that does not come under the current rulings definition of "manoeuver". Not being able to do any conversions in a fleet that can "manoeuver" is patently ridiculous, as I can do conversions with *inactive* fleets.
The more I think about this, the more I think I cannot accept this ruling.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 08:32 am: Edit
I don't know. As much as I don't really like it, it does make sense. The Feds are still not ready for a war, though they are wary and beginning to prepare.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 09:17 am: Edit
Chris
That is a sentiment, not an argument. May I remind you that the word "war" is included in the phrase "limited war".
The federation is not stupid entirly. Turn 7 has been and gone.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 09:51 am: Edit
An argument would be that the rules specificly release the 4th fleet and only allows the other fleets to "maneuver".
From a game perspective it does allow the coaltion the option of attacking on turn 10, if you interpret the rules the other way the coalition really has no hope attacking the Federation on turn 10. There will be 4 starbases over the earth!
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 11:54 am: Edit
Additional question. If the 4th Fleet is released, can the Federation build and upgrade bases in the 4th Fleet deployment area?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 01:36 pm: Edit
Question - Slow Persuit Battles and retreats!
Example - Force A has Normal Ships and Slow Ships, Force B has Normal Ships
Force A declares a retreat - the force split into the retreating force and Slow Forces.
Can Force B do the NORMAL battle with the Slow Forces (and not 'persue' the normal forces) and then retreat themselves?
Or does a 'slow Battle' preclude the Force B from retreating?
Thanks
By Martin Read (Amethyst_Cat) on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 02:32 pm: Edit
The Advanced Sequence of Play does not appear to offer an option for the non-retreating player in the slow units battle to subsequently retreat; there is no retreat option substep in Phase 5 Step 8: Pursuit (302.8) and (307.0), and substep 5-8C (Conduct pursuit battle) does not involve a repetition of Phase 5 Step 7: Retreat (302.7). Also, if you choose to retreat, you cannot conduct pursuit or force a slow unit battle.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 05:11 pm: Edit
I'm not at my books, but IIRC you cannot retreat if you pursue.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 12:54 am: Edit
There is no retreat if you pursue enemy forces retreating from the hex.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 03:14 am: Edit
Ahh - but the slow unit battle is not a pursuit battle
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 04:00 am: Edit
Edward
You know, the coalition could have 4 starbases over all of their capitals, and there would be *nothing* the alliance could do about it.
However, if the Klingons attack turn 7, the Feds do not have enough time to get SBs at the capital if the coalition press hard.
What gives only the coalition nations the right to make their capitals impregnable?
By Martin Read (Amethyst_Cat) on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 04:58 am: Edit
Tony: The slow unit battle is part of the Pursuit step of the combat phase (if there is both a slow unit battle and a pursuit from the same battle hex, the pursuit force has to be drawn from the normal battleforce deployed for the slow unit battle). If both players retreat, there is no Pursuit step. If there is a Pursuit step, the "pursuing" player (the one performing a pursuit or forcing a slow unit battle) cannot retreat afterwards, because there is not a retreat option point in Phase 5 Step 8 of the SOP; the retreat option points are in Phase 5 Step 7, which is not repeated for the pursuit or slow unit battle.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 09:48 am: Edit
David in answer to your question.
the initiative.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 10:14 am: Edit
David,
If the coalition spends enough money to have 4 SB in each capital hex, he isn't spending that money on the offensive. If he's not spending that money on the offensive, he's probably not winning. If he is winning, why is he wasting all that money on building SBs in his capitals?
Additionally, the coalition has all ready lost the game if the alliance is knocking on the door of all his capitals. What does it matter if the alliance can't capture any of the coalition capitals if they control all the rest of coalition territory? Eventually, the coalition will run out of ships. Then it just doesn’t matter how many SBs they build in the capital. Alliance X-ships will make short work of them.
In a nut shell, I don’t understand your argument.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 11:35 am: Edit
Martin, I totally agree. I was just pointing out you couldn't say "No" strictly because it's a pursuit battle
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 04:53 pm: Edit
Rereading my first question I realised I hadn't finished it -
If a fleet is out of supply at the start of the opponents opmove, comes back into supply during the execution of opmove (due to the movement of fleets/reserves). Then, because other combat hexes are conducted first goes back out of supply, so that when it comes round to the fleet in questions combat it is out of supply.
What is it's supply status for combat purposes?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 07:47 pm: Edit
Wouldn't that fall under the section.....'If a fleet is out of supply at the beginning of the turn AND at the beginning of combat, it is out of supply for combat' ?
See rule 410.22
To me, it sounds like your fleet is out of supply for opmove, so it cannot use extended reaction, BUT it is in supply for combat since it is in supply at the START of combat.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 05:13 am: Edit
Chris
The supply status for combat is evaluated at the instant of combat. Suppose I am asking if the instant in question is the instant the combat phase starts, or the instant of a particular fleets combat. Thought I would check with an example. I think it is probably the former and they are going to be out of supply - ah well.
Reaction movement & supply status isn't covered by the rules - for operational movement it is eveluated at the start of the opmive phase but no mention of reaction movement. I would guess therefore it is covered by 410.1 - ie in supply if got a valid supply path at the instant you want to use the reaction move, but it's not very clear - hence the question.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 08:16 am: Edit
Paul - just a thought on the Fed MB question -
Think you are right about it being a question of whether the fleet is active with a restriction, or whether it is inactive with a additional ability.
602.17 says that all fed fleets are inactive T1-6.
602.4 activates the 4th fleet on T7, but doesn't change the status of any of the others anywhere, just allows home and 3rd to maneuver. Seems like they are inactive with and ability.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 09:11 am: Edit
Acutually, reading more rules resolves this - unfortunately not in my favour
433.413 - worth reading - you need to be at war or limited war to put down any new base at all (although you can replace destroyed bases at peacetime economies)
600.321 - the definitive one - "mobile bases assigned to inactive fleets cannot be set up until the fleet is released"
so even if the 4th had had a MB, it could not be set up, as an "active" fleet is not as unrestricted as a "released" fleet.
Interestingly, if you read all of these 2 rules carefully, they mean that on turns 7-10, the Feds can only set up one MB per hex in fed territory, except in the 4th fleet deployment area, where the number of MBs per hex is unrestricted. Not that such lack of restriction matters much, as the feds can only build 1 MB per turn.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 10:14 am: Edit
To my mind (and from Nicks answer) if the 3rd and home fleets are not released then the bases cannot be set-up. I think Pauls appeal is based on the fleets being released just not allowed to move outside of Fed territory.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 09:23 pm: Edit
Hmm, I never really thought that particular rule confusing or vague, James. What happend that brought the question?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 06:03 pm: Edit
Nick, can the Federation ECL be used as the outermost escort when paired up with a Federation DE?
Rule 515.31 lists annex 757.8 which has the ECL listed as Heavy and the DE listed as light, but then rule 308.114 says that you use the uncrippled defense factor to order the escorts from outermost to innermost, and in case of a tie (like the DE and ECL) the player gets to choose the order as they like.
It makes no sense that a Size CLass 3 light crusier escort would be the smallest escort compared to a Size CLass 4 destroyer escort.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 08:38 pm: Edit
Nick
I hope I'm not asking questions that have been answered before (I've checked using Keyword Search but found nothing).
Question 1: Regarding POL and supply.
(531.12) states that POL are called up in the production phase. I would guess that this comes during step 2B3 in the sequence of play.
Now, 2B4 is when replacement fighters are received "if in supply."
Does the replacement of fighters work on an instantaneous supply condition or is it based upon supply status during phase 1A?
The situation (as an example): I will (depending on the answer to question 2) have a Hydran fleet that will be in a tiny partial supply grid (1EP) at the beginning of the Alliance turn. The five ships/12 replacement fighters will be useful, but not wonderful. The fleet will be able to draw supply from the capital grid the first hex they move, so supply for the purpose of combat is not an issue. What I am worried about is their fighter supply. I am able to place a POL such that the fleet can trace a supply path to the capital in phase 2B4. Do I get replacement fighters from the capital?
Second question (does it ever end?): Supply grid terminology. (413.4) talks about partial supply grids as separate from OffMap or Capital supply grids. A great deal is made of listing the differences from partial grids on one hand from OffMap/Capital grids (which are treated the same) on the other. Now, Step 3-C of retreat (302.732) talks about partial verses main supply grids in the context of being able to eliminate partial supply grid hexes in favor of ones supplied from the main grid. The distinction here is between partial and main supply grids (the terms Capital and OffMap are not used). The "main supply grid" is always given as singular. Are the Capital and OffMap supply grids both considered "main" supply grids for the purpose of this rule?
An example (with one minor tweak): The Hydran Capital is cut off from the 2nd Fleet SB and the OffMap. Lyran forces are in 0116 (FF), 0215 (Huge # of ships), 0318 and 0416. The BATS in 0114 is intact. The Hydrans will lose the 2nd Fleet SB. The other five hexes surrounding 0215 are clear.
Step 3-B eliminates hexes 0315 and 0316 as the retreating Hydran fleet would be out of supply there.
Now, if the OffMap grid is not a "main supply grid," the Hydrans cannot eliminate hexes 0115 and 0214 and then must select one of those two by Step 3-D.
Question 2B: If the OffMap is a "main supply grid," could the Hydrans retreat to 0216? While that hex is not in supply at the moment of retreat (due to the FF in 0116), it would be if the Hydrans retreated there.
And, if you're feeling generous, what is the status of the second Paladin activation if the Coalition takes the Hydran capital on T4C? My pride doesn't want anyone to get the wrong idea, my friend and I are using Cold Front to create an alternative beginning to the General War. Rules wise, this possibility does not seem to be covered. For this reason, I am guessing a decision would have to come from the top about this, but it would be very useful to know for my upcoming T4A. Supporting the Coalition, the rules make no provision for this. Supporting the Hydrans, there are circumstantial statements. If you look in the flavor text, it notes that this is a conversion from a 4PW DN (442.51). In addition, the text in (525.316) covering the IC state that this incomplete hull was evacuated to the Old Colonies. Now, if an incomplete hull can be evacuated, how about an obsolete one?
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 10:15 pm: Edit
Dumb, quick question. I thought the Fed COV could be used for surveying, but now can't find a concrete rule on that anywhere. Was I just dreaming that up? Anyone?
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 10:59 pm: Edit
Nevermind. Found it in the SIT where it is explicitly described as a Survey Cruiser.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 12:25 pm: Edit
Just reading through the Zin Duke's fleet setup, and I noticed the following:
"Duke's Fleet: Deploy within two hexes of Klingon NZ east of 10xx inclusive, except 1704"
"Marquis' Fleet: Setup in provinces 1902 and 1803 but not within two hexes of Klingon NZ but includes 1704."
Now, does this mean that the Kzinti can operate in those three hexes (1705, 1804, 1805), and can upgrade bases in those hexes? Also, does this allow the Klingons to attack the BATS in 1805, or the other two hexes, without allowing the Feds to go to Limited War?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 07:02 pm: Edit
1705 1704 and 1805 are all inside the Marquis provinces......the Klingons cannot go in there without activating the Feds......but, you have always been able to upgrade bases in the Marquis after it is active, as the Fleet is "released" save the CC and 5 other ships.
At least, that is the way I have always understood it.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 08:03 am: Edit
I'm sure Cfant is right. There have been several term papers over the years on building/upgrading bases in the Marquis provinces in order to try to force the Klingon to attack them and bring the Feds in early in a Limited War status.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 09:48 am: Edit
Yes, but if you read in the earlier 2K rules, the wording from then to AO is different. In the 2K rules, it just declares the Marquis Fleet setup as being the two Marquis provinces. In the AO rules, it specifically excempts those three hexes from the Marquis Fleet, implying that those hexes are part of the Duke's Fleet area. Check it out, there is a difference, and I am just wondering if it allows the Klingons to attack those hexes now, or if the Zin could upgrade that BATS on Turn 1.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 11:49 am: Edit
If a tug is acting as a supply point the rules (412.2) state explicitly that the tug can not move during the player turn it is used in this role. The rules state to use rule 302.21(action with bases) if it is attacked, but can it react to movement before it is attacked?
My opponent believes there is no reason it can not, but I do not see an enabling rule in this circumstance.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 02:58 pm: Edit
Sorry Chris, just spotted your question. What brought it up?..... David wanted to set-up the Home fleet MB's at the 3rd, 4th and 6th SB. I thought the rules prohibited it. Paul (playing the Federation's Kzinti lacky ) appealed.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 03:03 pm: Edit
A planet lost its PDUs in a previous game turn and is no longer, or has never been, devastated. The planet begins the current game turn with a RDU. Does an attacker need to inflict three or ten points of damage to devastate the planet?
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 03:32 pm: Edit
Todd - the answer is actually 13. 3 points to destroy the rdu, plus 10 points to devestate the planet. If the attacker were directing the damage it would cost more to do so. (10 to destroy the rdu in 1 round, 20 the next).
Note: I am not the answer man, just trying to get you an answer quick, and confirm that I know how to play this game.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 03:55 pm: Edit
I have a gigantic pile of cripples that confirms that Bill (and his partner Russ) knows how to play this game.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 04:53 pm: Edit
It would make no sense to make those three hexes any different than the other hexes in the province. It would be good to get that clarified though.
Nick, you around man?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 04:56 pm: Edit
Bill is right about the cost to devestate the planet by the way.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 10:57 pm: Edit
I should get to questions tomorrow. I have been busy with grading tac notes/term papers for CL27, and stuff for Gurps Klingons. Oh, and that work place I have to go to all the time for some reason... Tomorrow I am free though.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 11:12 pm: Edit
Nick, please disregard my first question. I found (501.5) where it states "Supply is evaluated at the point in time where the replacement fighters are being provided to the carrier." I am still curious to know if the POL arrives in step 2B3, though. If I could ask yet another question about supply (related to some of my other questions):
Many rules, like (531.12), Placement of Additional POL, and (302.733), Retreat Priority Step 3, use the criteria of hexes which are in supply. In contrast, only units are talked about being in supply in (410.0) and hexes are only mentioned as being a "supply route" (411.0). Is a hex considered to be in supply if a ship in that hex would be in supply?
Example: Hydrans at 0617. Coalition at 0416 and 0515. Assume all other Hydran bases to be destroyed. Could the Hydrans place a POL in 0516? This hex is not adjacent to any Hydran ships or units, and is adjacent to Coalition ships and units. However, if a POL was placed there, the POL would be in supply.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 11:29 am: Edit
Tim Losberg, that sounds illegal to me. Not sure why I ruled otherwise before, but the rule clearly states that a destination battle hex must involve friendly or allied units. You could react something to a neutral planet that your opponent enters, then you could move a reserve fleet there.
Edward Reece, fighters/PFs are never in the "formation bonus" position. See last part of (308.74).
James Southcott:
1) I don't think it ever was back in supply, since rule (410.22) says you check for supply at the start of the turn (out of supply), and again at the instant of combat (again out of supply). You never made a supply check at a time when it was in supply since you were not resolving that battle hex.
2) If (410.2) didn't give you another supply check since the start of the turn (when you were out of supply), then you are still out of supply and could not use extended reaction.
3) Right, Origins decision was: if at the instant it is destroyed it has no valid supply path, then no salvage is gained.
Paul Howard: So much discussion here and only because I misunderstood the question. Actually I didn't realize he was talking about that special Fed rule, and was answering the question in general for any inactive fleet, my apologies. In the special fed limited war case, since those fleets can maneuver anywhere in fed space, they must be released (but with a restriction on leaving fed space), so the MBs from those fleets could be set up. Other bases in those areas could be upgraded, etc...
If Fourth fleet is released, then of course those bases could be upgraded as well.
Paul Howard, others are correct in that if you fight the slow battle, pursuit battle, or both, then you CANNOT retreat. If you retreat, then there is NO slow or pursuit battle. The slow unit battle and pursuit battle are essentially simultaneous, and are both essentially "pursuit", just one is slower than the other.
Chris E. Fant, I would think that the SIT's definition of "Heavy" or "Light" has more weight than the defense factor, i.e. use that for determining the order of several Heavy or several Light escorts, but a Heavy one would always be on the "inner" side and the Lights on the "outer" side of the carrier group.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 11:56 am: Edit
Dale Fields:
1) Police ships called up in 2B3 and fighter replacement in 2B4 sounds good.
2) Last paragraph of (413.1) says you can have two separate main grids (one containing the capital, one the off map), and a number of partial grids. The off map grid and the capital hex grid are both main grids (even if they are separate from each other) for all purposes as far as I know.
3) Last sentence of (442.51) says that any DNs not activated on schedule can be activated later by skipping a regular DN build (i.e. you can't build a DN and activate a previous on on the same turn). I suppose this lets you activate any DNs you faild to activate earlier after rebuilding your shipyard...
Robert Padilla, rule (601.12) says that the prohibition is against the Klingons entering the two marquis provinces. Any Kzinti ships can of course enter these provinces at any time, and Duke fleet units can set up in some of the hexes as you note. The Marquis fleet is released (except for six ships) when the Klingons attack Kzinti space, and then those bases could be upgraded, but the Klingons cannot attack either of those provinces without consequences due to (601.12). The changes reflect your setup ability, the other rules still read the same and so the operation of these during the game is unchanged.
Bill Schoeller, the supply tug cannot move, and thus cannot react.
Todd Jahnke, actually, you can also just devestate the planet with Directed Damage (20 pts), and the RDU is then destroyed automatically, see (508.16). Usually you would just let the damage fall (so it would only take 13) unless there are defending fleet units and you just want to devestate the planet, in that case you can ignore the RDU and just DD the planet itself for 20 pts.
If I missed anything, let me know.
Oh, and sorry I didn't get to these yesterday like I said I would. I'm just a lazy bum.
Nick
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 01:43 pm: Edit
Thanks for the answers Nick - however it is my turn to appeal the Fed thing. There are a couple of things that make me think that the rule is written in order for the home and third fleets to be inactive with and ability to move:
602.17 says that all fed fleets are inactive T1-6.
602.4 activates the 4th fleet on T7, but doesn't change the status of any of the others anywhere, just allows home and 3rd to maneuver.
secondly - If the intention was for them to be active then I would suggest the rule would be written as a limiting one (ie 'active but may not leave fed space')- as per the Lyrans T7-9 during which time their fleets are active but are not allowed in Fed space. 602.43 is written as an empowering rule ('can maneuver with fed space') more appropriate where the fleets are inactive but given an ability that most inactive fleets do not have - to move.
For our current game we'll go with what you ruled on Paul's appeal - so the bases can be set-up. Appreciate it if you and Jeff could have a look for future games though - thanks
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 01:47 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 11:19 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
Chris E. Fant, I would think that the SIT's definition of "Heavy" or "Light" has more weight than the defense factor, i.e. use that for determining the order of several Heavy or several Light escorts, but a Heavy one would always be on the "inner" side and the Lights on the "outer" side of the carrier group.
________________________________________
Nick,
I'd like to appeal this one.
(308.111 - FE2k) says ... ony one escort can be attacked by CEDS in each combat round, and the smallest escort MUST be the one attacked.
(515.31 - CVW) says ... For purposes of (308.11), use the defense factor to determine which is the "smallest" escort.
There is seperate treatment for Heavy & Light escorts (around group composition requirements), but no rule that I could find says that light escorts must be the smallest escort.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 01:34 am: Edit
That's really hair splitting isn't it though? I mean, all the rules point to the idea that the smallest escort is on the outside.
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 01:16 pm: Edit
The trouble is there has been at least one (if not a couple) term paper on the subject (i.e. using Fed CL on the outside of a group with DEs, since the CL is tougher to destroy) that were ruled legal based on 515.31.
I second Tony's appeal. If its denied, 515.31 needs to be updated when Fighter Operations is published to relect 'Light' & 'Heavy' escorts instead of defense facators.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 03:40 pm: Edit
Which CL are those tac notes in? I will take a look (If I have that CL).
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 10:20 am: Edit
James, you forgot to mention the Fed Romulan boarder fleet (6th). Which is also allowed to move only it is given an even more restricted maneuvering area "move within this area". 602.2
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 11:24 pm: Edit
Nick,
can't remember off the top of my head (my brother gets them all, I just read them ). High teens / low twenties is where I'd look.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 12:07 am: Edit
Nick
Thanks for answering my first batch of questions. But, since you said if you missed anything to let you know, well, then I'll bug you about my "hex in supply" question. To wit, are hexes in supply if a unit in them is in supply? I'll repost the specifcs below:
Many rules, like (531.12), Placement of Additional POL, and (302.733), Retreat Priority Step 3-C, use the criteria of hexes which are in supply. In contrast, only units are talked about being in supply in (410.0) and hexes are only mentioned as being a "supply route" (411.0).
Example: Hydrans at 0617. Coalition at 0416 and 0515. Assume all other Hydran bases to be destroyed. Could the Hydrans place a POL in 0516? This hex is not adjacent to any Hydran ships or units, and is adjacent to Coalition ships and units. However, if a POL were to be placed there, the POL would be in supply.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 09:16 am: Edit
Are AuxD's limited by the 12 DB factors per battle hex? Or is the limit just three DB ships? I'm asking because I'm trying to figure a way to use the Large AuxD, without having to build a second one.
By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 02:01 pm: Edit
Robert the limit was changed to 3 DB ships in AO when DB ships with more then 4 factors were introduced
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 02:52 pm: Edit
(318.13) Kzinti Fast Drone Bonus | Bombardment says (in part) "...The limit (309.2) on the total number of bombardment factors is changed (for all races) to three platforms rather than a set number of factors..."
However, that rule is in a larger rule that doesn't apply until Y180. So, does that part of (318.13) apply at the start of the war, or starting in Y180?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 02:59 pm: Edit
Ooo, good question.
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 03:03 am: Edit
Nick,
Can you give a clarification of the following rule?
"Ships can enter Neutral Zone hexes if they continue to move into the neutral power and accept internment ... If a unit spends its last movement point (or its only hex of retreat movement) entering the Neutral Zone it is allowed to move on into the first hex of the neutral country immediately and be interned immediately. (Actually, what happens, is the pursuing enemy force stops pursuit at the end of the Neutral Zone and the fleeing units enter the neutral country on the next turn, but it is more convenient to handle this immediately)"
So does this mean
A) Ships with movement points left (using operational or retrograde) must continue on into a neutral power immediately, and ships with no movement points left are ALLOWED to continue on immediately, or continue on the next turn at the players discretion.
The phrasing of the second sentence seems to imply that it is optional ('allowed') whether you continue on into the neutral powers territory that turn or the next (for those ships with no movement points left.) And there is nothing in the first sentence that indicates that the continuation of movement must be immediate.
B) All ships regardless of their remaining movement points MUST continue moving within that same phase into a neutral power who's NZ they violated.
By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 03:06 am: Edit
Nick, the question above is related to the Lyran/Klingon turn 1 situation. I believe there has been a specific ruling on this
By Erik Davis (Hi_Stik) on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 04:01 pm: Edit
greetings, gentlemen. I am not sure where else to ask this question, so here goes. Where, and/or how, does one go about ordering more counters? On the starfleetgames.com link to ordering, all I find is countersheets E+F. I'm not a bright fellow, so don't laugh. Some help would be greatly appreciated.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 04:28 pm: Edit
Look at spare parts. Numerous counter set are listed in there, but they are unfortunately not completely listed as to what sheets are what. I would look at the copies that you have, and select how many of which sheets you need, and then order you sheets.
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 04:30 pm: Edit
Erik:
certain countersheets are nearly exhausted and will be reprinted soon. Currently extra packs of counters are called 'Fleet Packs' (of which only expansion counters are available).
A new product in the Spring (currently Feb) will be called F&E reinforcements which is updated version of the extra couunters product.
Of course you can always buy a duplicate box/module - many of us F&E nuts have several.
Personally I have at least two of everything - for counters and so I can have both an intergrated rulebook, and the module rules seperate.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 01:19 am: Edit
I have used on the defense numerous times the following defense: When I am losing a planet I score in the last round of combat 10 points of damage towards the devestation of the planet before I abandon it. 508.21 states that this tactic is legal.
My question is can the defender use the same tactic when defending a planet that is already devastated? 508.211 says the attacker only needs to destroy the rdu, not score devastation damage in order to recaptue the planet, but there are situations where if the defender were to apply devestation damage to the planet it would remain in the defenders hands.
My second question is on recapturing a planet. the rules (413.2) state that when a planet is captured (or recaptured) the planet will form part of the supply grid the turn at the start of the next player turn(therefore if the attacker abandons the planet the defender gets to count the planet in its supply grid at the start of his next turn-assuming it is part of said grid). 508.22 states that if a planet is captured (nothing is stated about recapture) then it will provide economy on the second subsequent turn of continuous possession. Does this second subsequent turn apply to a recapture of a planet as well?
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 04:48 am: Edit
If a planet is already devestated, there is nothing to score the devestation damage on. The only way a defender could apply devestation damage to a planet with an rdu is if the planet had recovered from a previous devestation but had not had new defences installed.
As for when a recaptured planet produces income, it seems to me the intent is the same as a captured planet. You're right, though, Bill, it is a bit ambiguous.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 10:15 am: Edit
You can always devestate a planet. If a devestated planet is in the original owner's hands and in the process of recovery, you can attack it and re-devestate it (leaving it in the original owners hands) in order to "reset the clock" on the four turns of recovery. Doesn't matter if there are any defenses or not, you can always devestate the planet itself. (Yes, you don't need to redevestate it to capture it, but if you don't intend to capture you can at least make the recovery process start over).
I should be able to get to questions this weekend sometime.
Nick
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 08:31 am: Edit
On the devestation issue or redevestation I should say.
#1 you cannot devestate a planet with defenses, you have to destroy the PDU/PGB/RDU first.
#2 as soon as the RDU is destroyed it is considered to have been redevestated that turn.
#3 I don't see how you sould possibly score devestation damage (10 points) on a planet until it has fully recovered.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 10:28 am: Edit
Well, in a similiar fashion, can the defender decide to score the 10 devistation points on an already devistated planet they are defending? Of course they could not do this in the same turn it was devistated, but just wondering if the defender gets to soak up 10 points every turn or not.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 12:02 pm: Edit
Why? You keep dropping the damage on the planet each turn to reset the devestation cycle. Makes plenty of sense to me.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 05:33 pm: Edit
It's a bit...twinky, though, and a bit imbalancing. I mean, how hard can it be to pound a bit of rubble after that initial outlay? In a way, though, it doesn't matter, as there are some groups (mine included) that have looked at this and decided we're not going to allow the defender to score those points voluntarily after devestation, even if there's a ruling to the contrary.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 07:25 pm: Edit
Heh, I love that. "We will not use the rules, even if they are correct"
It still makes perfect sense to me. The planet is still there, with cities and whatnot. You have to devestate a planet again to start the recovery cycle process over again.
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 10:06 pm: Edit
I'm sure plenty of people must know the answer to this question, but we haven't played but once in the last 4 years and I can't find a rule clarification for it... here goes.
Rule 203.64 says that a stack that voluntarily ends it's movement is assumed to pulse out it's remaining points in that hex and can be reacted to.
If a unit is pinned does the same situation apply? If a ship is pinned on it's first pulse, and a stack of units 2 away moves towards it by one hex using extended reaction movement, would those units be able to continue reacting to that pinned ship? IE: Would a pinned ship pulse out it's remaining movement points, or do the pulses just disappear unreactably?
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 09:34 am: Edit
You cannot score devestation damage on a planet with a defense unit on it period.
If the RDU is destroyed then the planet is instantly devestated.
Therefore there is no situation in which a defender could score 10 points (he gets 3 no ifs ands or buts) of devestation damage on an already devestated planet.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 10:07 am: Edit
Ed...I really think you are wrong. Perhaps if we followed what Nick ALREADY said?
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 10:21 am: Edit
The rules do not allow you to bypass a defense unit, not even an RDU, to devestate a planet.
By Erik Davis (Hi_Stik) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 11:16 am: Edit
help me, smart people! I am new to the game, and I have been reading some archived Strategy stuff, and I came across discussion of the Kzinti CVL>CV conversion, and one guy said he was doing the BC>CVL at SB 0902 on one turn, then the CVL>CV on a later turn. Now, as far as I understand the game, a BC>CVL conversion counts as 4 pts. (BC>CVL 2pts. CL>MEC & FF>EFF 1+1 pts., 4 pts. total), thus making it a major conversion. Am I missing out on a rule? I thought major (4+ pts.) conversion can only be done at the shipyard SB. Or does the >3 pt. rule only apply to the specific ship, & escorts do not count? In addition, I have an F&E proposal for a new unit. It's called an "SVC". It has a combat factor of 30, and it produces 3EP per turn. Thanks, out.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 11:19 am: Edit
The rules are in doubt and potential conflict. I was unable to find a passage that allowed the defender to voluntarily take devistation damage (If any one knows where this rule is I would appreciate it). This passage should definitively state that the defender has the right to take this damage voluntarily. If it does state that the defender can take the damage even after devistation, I believe that this is in conflict with the rdu destroyed= implied devistation.
Nick did rule that the defender can always take devistation damage (and I have always played this way), but my opponent pointed out the rdu = devistation rule.
Rather than us arguing about the rule and whether rule xxx.xxxx supercedes rule yyy.yyyy, I suggest we wait until Nick officially rules on the situation with a full rules reference. This might have been one of those accidental rule changes that slipped past in F&E 2K, and may need to be bumped up the chain to answer if the rules directly conflict with each other.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 11:20 am: Edit
That 4+ rule is for a single ship, so the BC->CVL is a minor conversion for 2 (+8 for the 4 fighters). Now tur(+4 for the fighters)ning it from a CVL->CV is a 4 point conversion so that is a major and requires the shipyard.
New units are hard to get instituted. Create a new topic in the Proposals board, post your idea, and we the players will all engage in conversation on it, then the Powers that Be will give it a thumbs up or down as they see fit =)
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 11:21 am: Edit
Didn't Nick just rule about 2 days ago on this?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 11:30 am: Edit
Yes, I'll post a copy.....
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 10:15 am: Edit
You can always devestate a planet. If a devestated planet is in the original owner's hands and in the process of recovery, you can attack it and re-devestate it (leaving it in the original owners hands) in order to "reset the clock" on the four turns of recovery. Doesn't matter if there are any defenses or not, you can always devestate the planet itself. (Yes, you don't need to redevestate it to capture it, but if you don't intend to capture you can at least make the recovery process start over).
That seems very cut and dry to me.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 11:38 am: Edit
I don;t see the issuse. 508.0 seems clear to me, in that you can give up the points on a planet if you wish, or the attacker can direct. It also say you do not "need" to redevistate the planet. And with Nick ruling above, that seems to be all cleared up.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 11:43 am: Edit
Nick's response is cut and dry, but it does not refer to any rules to support the position.
508.211 says the attacker only needs to destroy the rdu, not score devastation damage in order to recapture the planet.
His response appears to ignore 508.211. This is where I think doubt appears in many peoples eyes.
Nick's response appeared to be a quick answer, i.e. an obvious response that he knew, but that makes me wonder what the point of rule 508.211 actually is. Does the attacker have to redevistate the planet in order to take it if a fleet is defending it? If the attacker directs and destroys the rdu, the planet is automatically re-devistated, and the defender applies 10 damage to a just re-devistated planet, is it devistated twice on the same turn?
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 12:22 pm: Edit
Nick also doesn't state that you can apply 10 points to the planet, by devestating it he must mean you can destroy the RDU voluntarily (for 3 points) thus redevestating the planet.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 12:30 pm: Edit
FWIW - my understanding is: the defender cannot choose to apply damage to re-devastate a planet until it is no longer devastated (seems logical). Although he can absob damage in the RDU which does not necerssarily mean the planet is redevastated. The attacker can direct to redevastate (20pts of damage) in order to reset the clock (for example, if he is going to retreat)
I think the point of 508.211 is that, if the RDU is killed and all defending ships driven away the 10 points to redevastate the planet can be done at the attackers leisure - no point in having any rules about it.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 12:30 pm: Edit
Quote:
"Doesn't matter if there are any defenses or not, you can always devestate the planet itself."
As an RDU is part of the defenses, I would say he did indeed mention it.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 01:51 pm: Edit
On top of Chris comment there Nick also says "Yes, you don't need to redevestate it to capture it, but if you don't intend to capture you can at least make the recovery process start over" That seems to say you do not need to redevastate the planet to capture it. Further, redevastating it just starts the clock over.
As for the comment that killing the RDU redevastates the planet does not make sense either. I attack a planet and kill all the PDU and then retreat without doing the additional 10 required. This planet is not devastated eventhough I just killed all the defenses.
Further, it makes sense that a defender can take points to an already redevastated planet. Think of it this way. I bombard a planet essentially destroying the infrastructure and economy. It takes that planet 4 turns to recover. That does not mean that in 4 turns the infrastructure and ecomony went from destroyed to repaired. It just means that the repairs that have been worked on over the past four turns are complete.
By going back and killing the Residual Defensive Unit, you are not destroying the repairs done to that time, you are only killing the militia and 2nd teir garrison ships attempting to defend the repairs. In order to destroy the repairs and cause the planet's infrastructure and economy to go back to completely destroyed you need to bombard it again.
Since the defender can always choose to take damage to a planet instead of the defender, you can take the 10 points of damage to redevastate a planet and thereby restarting the recovery clock.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 02:34 pm: Edit
Agreed - destroying the RDU and devastating the planet are two different things. However I would be very surprised if the defender could choose to redevastate a planet that is already devastated but partially recovered. However it is a hole in the rules: it isn't specifically prohibitted and the fact the attacker has the option to direct to devastate could be interpretted as allowing the defender to assign damage to the planet.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 04:58 pm: Edit
The Middle of 508.21 says the defender can voluntarily give up damage against to devestate the planet. What would keep you from doing this once per turn?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 05:53 pm: Edit
Can we please stop the discussion, it is burying other questions. I will try to look at this again tonight.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 12:40 am: Edit
OK, after reviewing the rules again, this is how I see it.
Rule (508.16) says that if you devestate a planet (i.e. 10 damage, or 20 directed, or whatever comination with a mauler), then any Residual Defense thingy (the 3 point one) is automatically destroyed. Nowhere does it say if you destroy the RDU is the planet automatically devestated. It only works the one way, devestate the planet and the 3 pt. RDU goes up in smoke for free.
Rule (508.21) says that if you destroy the PDUs and do an additional 10 pts to the planet, it is devestated and produces reduced income for four turns. You do have to destroy the PDUs to devestate the planet. If the PDUs are destroyed, then the 10 devestation points can be taken voluntarily by the defender. If a planet is devestated any PDUs IN THE PROCESS OF BEING SET UP are destroyed automatically. This is also the rule that allows you to redevestate a planet to "reset the clock". See: If you have a devestated planet that is (say) on the last turn of recovery, an enemy can enter the hex, destroy any PDUs, do 10 additional points to the planet, and (508.21) then says you get reduced income for the next four turns. Note that you do not have to capture the planet to devestate it and start the four turn recovery period, but you do have to devestate it before you can capture it. Nowhere does it say you can only invoke this rule on an undevestated planet. Neither does it say you can, but this is how I have always understood it to work, and I know I remember seeing past discussions talk about raiding capital hexes specifically to redevestate the planet and "reset the clock" to keep someones capital at a lower economic output. It makes sense to me that the 4 turn period is spent rebuilding planetary infrastructure, factories, etc... and if you come in and bombard the planet, this will have to start over.
Rule (508.211) says that you don't need to redevestate an already devestated planet to capture it, only destroy any defenses.
Rule (508.212) says that you must direct on PDUs and the planet itself on different combat rounds. (You can't direct on the last two PDUs and do some devestation damage on the same direct damage attack...)
Rule (508.213) this rule combined with (508.21) is how you re-devestate a planet to "reset the clock".
Rule (508.22) says you do have to devestate the planet in the first place to capture it. (i.e. you can't have an undevestated planet that is also captured).
Rule (508.25) again says you can only capture devestated planets, and also the planet cannot begin recovery until it is liberated.
Now, no more discussion here (this isn't the topic for it), if you want to discuss then do so in the general F&E topic or other appropriate topic. If you want to ask a question on something I missed then that is fine of course, this is the question topic. If you want to request an appeal, speak up and I will bump it up.
I will try to get to other questions (I know they have been piling up) soon.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 05:37 am: Edit
Apologies for my part in swamping the questions with comment.
One question still remains:
If you have a devestated planet that is (say) on the last turn of recovery, an enemy can enter the hex, destroy any PDUs, do 10 additional points to the planet
Does this mean that the defender of a planet (that is devastated but is partially recovered) can voluntarily assign 10 points of damage to the planet to redevastate, or, in these circumstances is it an option only open to the attacker (directing for 20)? 508.211 doesn't really cover this as it is limited to capture.
The significance is that if the defender can chose to redevastate an already devastated planet then they becomes a 10pt damage sponge, each turn, 13pt with the RDU. If it is something only the attacker decides to do then it is not nearly so attractive a spot to defend.
By Bill Sheely (Bsheely) on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 01:05 pm: Edit
I have a question on Auxes and pinning.
203.5 sez:
"... the player cannot move units out of a hex containing enemy units unless there are a number of friendly ships remaining in the hex equal to the number of enemy ships."
Then in Annex 756.0, the listing of Non-Ship Units, Auxiliaries are *not* listed as Non-Ship Units, which would seem to say that they are then ships. Meaning they count for pinning purposes.
I've always assumed that Auxes can't pin because 513.136 sez:
"For purposes of pinning or being pinned (203.5), auxiliary carriers are treated as non-ship units (203.53)."
But that sentence is missing from the rules for any other Aux that I looked up.
It's weird that AuxCVs can't pin, but Aux scouts might be able to. Can anyone shed some light?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 03:58 pm: Edit
OK, silly question but I've had this come up before. Take a Zin CV group, CV-MEC-FKE. Now say I want to maul the FKE dead (there is more than enough damage, so don't worry about that). Is the cost to maul it dead 5 to cripple, 3 to destroy, plus 2 for the escort bonus, for a total of 10, or do I add the escort bonus first, followed by the 8 needed to destroy it, resulting in it costing 12 to maul?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 04:21 pm: Edit
(nevermind) don't have escort rules handy.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 04:30 pm: Edit
The FKE would cost 5+2 to cripple (with a mauler) + 3 to destroy for 10 with mauler, without mauler costs 2+(5*2)+(2*3) to destroy for 18
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 04:49 pm: Edit
The basic question was do you add for the escort bonus before or after calculating what it takes to cripple/kill the unit. And isn't the FKE a 3 defence crippled?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 04:52 pm: Edit
Jimi's counting:
5 (uncrippled side)+2 (2 escorts in carrier group) +3 to destroy (crippled side).
You count the Escort Bonus before crippling is what I remember (no rule reference handy).
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 05:02 pm: Edit
You add the escort bonus to the crippled side only (do not double the escort bonus though. So as an example for an FKE
WITHOUT MAULER
5(ships defense factor) * 2 = 10 + 2(escort bonus)=12 + 3*2 (crippled factor) = 18
OR
WITH MAULER
5(defense factor)+2(escort bonus)=7 +3(crippled factor) = 10
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 05:27 pm: Edit
Yes, you always add the escort bonus after doubling and only to the uncrippled side. For an example, see 308.113. The ship in the example is an Fed FFE, but it is also a 4-5/3 unit, so the outcome is the same.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 05:30 pm: Edit
Please note, that it only costs 11 to use a small mauler to kill this and in 6 tries you'll kill 6 FKE's but at the end you'll have 2 crippled small maulers instead of 2 crippled big maulers which will save you 3 EP's in repairs.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 11:22 pm: Edit
(410.2) Supply Status Questions
Some question about supply status came up tonight. Please confirm if these statements are correct:
1. If a ship is in supply at Phase 1A, then it can retrograde if all other rules permit it to do so? References: (410.22)(410.24)(105.0)
2. If a ship is in supply at Phase 5-3A, then it can retrograde if all other rules permit it to do so? References: (410.22)(410.24)(105.0)
3. The Operational Movement supply check is correctly located in step 3B1. Reference: (105.0)
4. The supply check for the placement hex of police ships is made in Phase 2A1. References: (531.12)(105.0)
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 09:48 pm: Edit
(756.0) Non-ship units include Auxiliaries, SAFs, SWACS, Swarms, and LTFs.
This is on the first archive of the Q&A page. I'm not too happy I found it since we had counted auxilliaries as pinning units, and the poor alliance needs all the help it can get.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 07:12 pm: Edit |
November - December 2003
By Bill Sheely (Bsheely) on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 01:26 am: Edit
Thank you, Mark.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, November 02, 2003 - 05:03 pm: Edit
Referencing F&ECO (531.121-4):
What are the maximum number (per race) of police ships allowed to be deployed?
(I broke apart all my counter sheets and don't remember the number on a sheet.)
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Sunday, November 02, 2003 - 07:58 pm: Edit
Chuck, IIRC, its five sheets worth which translates to 20 for Lyrans, Hydrans, Kzinti, Gorn and 25 for Klingon and Feds....
By Bill Sheely (Bsheely) on Sunday, November 02, 2003 - 08:48 pm: Edit
I'm pretty sure that the Hydrans only had 3 on the sheet, they are the odd man out.
15 for the H.
25 for K+F.
20 for everyone else.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, November 02, 2003 - 10:37 pm: Edit
Sorry for the delay. I am finishing up errata/rulings for Captain's log 27, and when I get that done I can get back to the Q&A topic. Should be Mon or Tue.
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 11:21 am: Edit
Nick, does a monitor count for pinning? (my recollection is that only monitor-based fighters/PFs count, but I don't have a rule or annex reference)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 11:34 am: Edit
A few questions we ran into last night.
1. If you have 1 point of damage left to take, and that 1 point is not half of any remaining defense factor can you still take that one point of damage and gain the minus points for it? (Assume no fighters are in the battle line)
2. Can casual carriers deploy their fighters forward from the support echelon to fight?
Thanks. I looked for supporting rules, but it was late and I really could find nothing.
By Martin Read (Amethyst_Cat) on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 11:54 am: Edit
The rules definitely say that yes, you can cripple a dreadnought to resolve a single point of damage if you want to. Couldn't quote reference right now, I'm at work.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 11:57 am: Edit
I think there is a max of 7 points that you can put into a pursuit battle though, so the best you would want to cripple is a CA ship
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 12:58 pm: Edit
Another question about Aux Warships. I've noticed that some, like the Aux PFT andAux DB ships have in their movement rules that they can use reaction movement, and extended reaction, but they can only move one hex max in reaction period. Then, I looked up Aux CVs and troop ships, and noticed that they also can use reaction, but the same restriction is not explicitly spelled out. Can all aux warships use reaction movement, but only for one hex total, or are these different on purpose. Thanks!
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 12:59 am: Edit
Thanks Bill, was working from memory and forgot that the Hydrans only had 3 instead of 4 POL...
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 09:54 am: Edit
A fairly major question here..
Can you use a mauler's special directed damage, or indeed, directed damage at all, when you are being persued? I always assumed yes, but the ruling is far from clear..
Under 307.4 persuit battle.
"The persuing player may designate one or more crippled ships and declare them to be a single target for directed damage, and use the special ability of a mauler in resolving this attack. Only crippled ships can be targeted this way."
This is odd. On the face of it, it allows you kill kill more than one cripple by DD, using a mauler, if you are persuing. However, by inference, the persued player *may not* do this.
The sentence is also significant in the phrasing "one or more". Why not just say "more than one", as you can obviously kill one cripple using a mauler in any combat round anyway? The inference becomes stronger, maybe you can't use a mauler against a cripple at all when you are being persued? If you can't use it against a cripple, surely you can't use it against an intact ship? Indeed, maybe one should infer you can't use directed damage at all under persuit?
The Sequence of play in AO supports this notion.
"5-5C Non-phasing player may select one phasing unit for directed damage and resolve this; exceptions Pursuit (307.4); stasis field generators; ground combat ships."
Now *what* is the persuit "exception" as referred to in 307.4 quoted above? How does the directed damage ability change for the player being persued? Certainly, there is nothing direct quoted that changes the persued fleet's DD abilities, so these indirect infereces I mention above must be correct. We have the directed damage "exception" for the persuing fleet clearly shown. What is the "exception" for the persued fleet?
I come to one of two possible conclusions
1) The persued fleet can't use maulers DD attack. OR
2) The persued fleet can't use DD at all.
I think (2) is the best interpretation.
(2) also makes sense. It would seem highly unlikely that a fleeing fleet could co-ordinate a directed damage attack. In particular, using a mauler would be suicidal - one assumes that the F&E mauler ability means the mauler is moving to less than 5 SFB hexes, facing the enemy. This is pretty much as bad a situatuion as a SFG ship, which is automatically destroyed when it uses its ability as a persued ship.
*****ADDENDUM**********
This ruling could have a significant effect on game balance. In my current games, the coalition commonly has a mauler and 2-4 carriers in their fleets. If they do not wish to contest a hex, they put up any battleline which includes the fighters but not the mauler. The first round of combat will normally see about 12-18 coalition fighters dead, and 2-4 FF/CW crippled. The caolition retreats. Now the Alliance typically sees a 70+ line with a mauler and EW when they are persuing. Given that the Alliance pretty much has to use a cruiser line to get a decent pursuit compot, this is instantly a death knell for an alliance cruiser, as the coalition only require 14 damage to kill it witha mauler. The net result is that the Alliance cannot profitably persue (a very annoying dynamic IMHO) - they get a dead cruiser (+ probably 6-8 more damage to resolve) in exchange for 2-3 dead frigates.
Meanwhile, the coalition are quite safe persuing with 6 dreadnoughts or crusiers- a persued force will never manage 36 damage, and often not 24 either.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 12:18 pm: Edit
Gonna plead the coaltions case here.
On the face of it, it allows you kill kill more than one cripple by DD, using a mauler, if you are persuing. However, by inference, the persued player *may not* do this.
Agreed - Rules are either specific or general. The general rule is that a player may direct only one ship and may use a mauler to do so. The pursuer is given a specific rule allowing him to kill multiple cripples. You do not have to infer the 'pursued's' inability to kill multiple targets, the specific rule is not there so the pursued is left with the general - direct on one target.
The sentence is also significant in the phrasing "one or more". Why not just say "more than one", as you can obviously kill one cripple using a mauler in any combat round anyway? The inference becomes stronger, maybe you can't use a mauler against a cripple at all when you are being persued? If you can't use it against a cripple, surely you can't use it against an intact ship? Indeed, maybe one should infer you can't use directed damage at all under persuit?
I'm not sure how the specific rule allowing a pursuer to direct on multiple cripples can be interpreted to provide another specific rule that the pursued may not direct at all or may not use a mauler to do so. If that was the intention it would be easily written: 'the pursued battle force may use directed damage/Maulers in the pursued force may not use their special abilities.'
"5-5C Non-phasing player may select one phasing unit for directed damage and resolve this; exceptions Pursuit (307.4); stasis field generators; ground combat ships."
What is the "exception" for the persued fleet?
I think the confusion here is down to the difference between phasing/non-phasing and pursued/pursuer.
It is not an exception for the pursued fleet, but for the non-phasing player who is pursuing (a pursuer can direct at multiple crippled targets) and is in the SOP for both phasing and non-phasing palyer because it is just as probable that the non-phasing player will be the the pursuer as the pursued.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 12:52 pm: Edit
David,
I have to agree with John on this one. I see no confusion in the rule as you stated it. I feel you are making the same mistake that was made in re redevastating planets by reading too much into the rule. Granted I am at work and do not have my rule book with me to confirm; however, the rule as you typed it ONLY deals with the actions of one side, in this case the pursuer. It does nothing to change the general rule for the other side.
As for the word choice between "one or more" and "more then one". Understand that I am not the game designer nor do I purport to know his thinking, but I would have choosen the first option because it is more specific. By saying "one or more", it is specific that you can target one crippled ship or 10 crippled ship. If the rule were to say "more then one" it leaves it open to more interpretation on whether you can only target one ship. You may say it is obvious you can always target at least one ship. My response would be let's make the rule as specific as possible. After all what does is mean?
This rule seems to be as specific as it could be. It specifically says only the pursuing force can use the multiple crippled ship mauler target to kill one or more crippled ships.
For a logical reason as to why the pursued can't use this option, how often is the pursuer going to have multiple crippled ships in the pursuit force. If a Pursuer is putting more then one crippled ship in his 6 ship pursuit battle force, should he really be pursuing? Especially if the pursued has an uncrippled mauler.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 01:21 pm: Edit
Crippled ships cannot pursue anyway.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 01:55 pm: Edit
Oh dang, that is correct. I completely forgot that aspect of pursuit in my zeal of responding. In light of Chris' reminder (thanks Chris), I think there is even less reason for confusion on the rule.
As an aside, this is one of my pet peeves. It drives me up a wall when players attempt to stretch a clearly written rule way beyond it's specific intent. I remember one particular case where a player gave an explanation of how a clearly written rule could be used to interpret the exact opposite meaning that went on for 20 minutes and was more confusing then a gordian knot. Most of the other players eyes glazed over after the first 5 minutes.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 02:13 pm: Edit
I don't think his intent was to try to interpret an exact opposite meaning RManning. I think it was an attempt to clarify something that was just more confusing to him then it really ought to have been. Anyways, you have all answered and clarified his questions truthfully so hopefully this removes any confusion he may have had.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 02:55 pm: Edit
I've come across rules I had been playing one way for years only to find out I'd missed something. No harm in asking the question.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 03:00 pm: Edit
Yeah, I learn at least one new thing every time I play that I had no idea on before.
With so many rules, sometimes you just miss things.
I do hate it when folks try to twist rules though. Does not happen that often though, I think.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 04:54 pm: Edit
Oh, I agree. I don't know the rules nearly well enough to consider myself anything other then a beginner which I think was evidenced by my forgetting cripples can't pursue. I rely very heavily on my game partner Bill Schoeller for a lot of my rules clarification.
I also did not mean to imply I thought David was twisting a rule. I was just commenting on a pet peeve of mine. I sometime fall in the same trap as I think David did. The rules of this game are quite complex. Due to that, I sometimes see complexity where there isn't any.
Finally an apology to Nick for further cluttering with the Questions topic with extraneous stuff.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 07:00 pm: Edit
John's interpretation is correct. If you'll notice, both the phasing and non-phasing player's steps say the same thing.
"5-5B Phasing player may select one non-phasing unit for directed damage and resolve this; exceptions Pursuit (307.4); stasis field generators; ground combat ships."
"5-5C Non-phasing player may select one phasing unit for directed damage and resolve this; exceptions Pursuit (307.4); stasis field generators; ground combat ships."
The three exceptions listed (pursuit, SFG, and Ground combat ships) are all instances where the player may use Directed Damage against more than one unit. Pursuit (307.4) allows the pursuing fleet to target "one or more" crippled units, SFGs count all frozen units as a single target (312.212), and ground combat ships and their escorts don't count as the one allowed directed damage attack (521.373).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 12:06 am: Edit
Alright.
Question under appeal, Fed fleet status on early turns.
Question under appeal, the Fed ECL light/heavy escort thing.
=======================
Dale Loyd Fields: for purposes of those rules a hex is considered in supply if it has a valid supply path to a valid supply point. Note that a ship (even the ship you are trying to supply) can "open" an adjacent hex (411.31) that would otherwise be blocked, a hex (with nothing in it) cannot.
=======================
Robert Padilla: I cannot remember if the change from 3 DB ships/12 factors to just 3 DB ships is from the start of the war or from Y180. Let me check.
=======================
Mark Sayther: If you enter the NZ adjacent to a future beligerant, I.e. Lyran entering Klingon NZ on turn 1, then you IMMEDIATELY proceed into the next hex and become interned, regardless of whether you have legal moves left or not. Note that the last parenthetical part of the sentence says this is handled immediately at that point rather than on the next turn.
=======================
Erik Davis, the "Fleet Packs" on the shopping cart are a good source of extra counters.
========================
Mark Sayther: I would say you can continue to react to a pinned force (as it "pulses" its remaining moves).
=======================
Erik Davis: Even the each individual ship is a minor conversion, doing them together at one starbase as "a conversion" under (433.14), since the cost of "a conversion" is more than three pts it is a major conversion (433.12). You could do (with carrier war rules) just the carrier BC>CVL conversion at any starbase for 2 pts + one escort for a total of 3 pts, and the other escort(s) at other starbase(s).
==========================
James Southcott, the original owner can voluntarily take devestation damage (after PDUs are gone) assuming he is also the current owner, since the enemy is willing to bombard the planet to devestate it (causing reduced income for the next 4 turns). If the capturing player is currently holding the planet in a battle, I don't see how he could take voluntary devestation damage since the opposing side (original owners) would never fire on the planet beyond hitting PDUs. At least that is my interpretation.
================================
Bill Sheely, see rule (513.136) in Combined Ops. Aux ships are treated as non-ship units for purposes of pinning, so they can be pinned by the enemy, but cannot pin another ship themselves. In general, unless otherwise listed in their individual rules, all aux ships use the same rules for movement, pinning, etc...
=================================
Robert Padilla, (308.11) describes this. So if you have CV-MEC-FKE, you have two escorts and two bonus points. So the FKE (5-3) means without the mauler costs 10+2 to cripple and 6 more to destroy. With the 10 point mauler costs 5+2 to cripple and 3 more to destroy. The bonus points are added after calculating the amount of damage needed to cripple, and are not reduced by a mauler.
=========================
Chuck Strong:
1. Incorrect. You must either be in supply at the instant of retrograde or have been in supply (really actully had a valid supply path) during the preceding combat (the carry over supply STATUS from the start of the turn into a combat zone without a valid supply PATH does NOT EVER COUNT for retrograding)
2. Correct.
3. Looks right.
4. Looks right.
I just ruled somewhat recently on the police ship/supply thing. I hope I did it the same way this time.
=============================
Chuck Strong. I broke all my sheets apart also and don't remember the POL counter numbers either. Did you guys reconstruct them?
===============================
That catches up through Nov 2nd. Still have to do Monday's and Tuesday's questions. But now my brain is mush. I will get to the next ones Wed night or Thurs night.
Nick
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 07:52 am: Edit
Question (occured last night)!
Specifics - Turn 8 - Coalition have not invaded Federation Space - so Feds are at Limited War.
On Alliance Turn 8, can the Kzinti capture the Neutral Zone hexes between the Federation and Klingon space? As far as I can tell, yes, as neither are future beligerants.
If the Kzinti can occupy those hexes, can the Coalition attack them without invading/starting war with the Federation?
Thanks
By Jim Mattaboni (Jmatta) on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 08:18 am: Edit
Nick,
Can we put the question and the answers to the Questions you answer in a document somewhere else on the board. It is hard to track down questions with the corosponding answers through all the posts
Jim
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 09:45 am: Edit
Can a defender of a neutral zone planet apply damage to the minor neutral planet for devastation?
My second question is on recapturing a planet. the rules (413.2) state that when a planet is captured (or recaptured) the planet will form part of the supply grid the turn at the start of the next player turn(therefore if the attacker abandons the planet the defender gets to count the planet in its supply grid at the start of his next turn-assuming it is part of said grid). 508.22 states that if a planet is captured (nothing is stated about recapture) then it will provide economy on the second subsequent turn of continuous possession. Does this second subsequent turn apply to a recapture of a planet as well?
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 01:55 pm: Edit
Can a Commercial Convoy be raided in the neutral zone of a future belligerent? Example, the Fed/Kzinti ComConv in a neutral zone hex between the Marquis zone and Federation space during Turns 1 through 6.
What effect does crippling have on an SAF, beyond reducing the damage necessary to destroy it?
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 11:36 pm: Edit
Nick
Thanks for the clarification on hexes "in supply." Unfortunately, another question came up tonight (sorry).
When exactly does Orion smuggling of EP happen? Specifically, is it limited or can it happen at any time?
Now, (410.34) details using Orion smuggling to pay for "supply, conversion and construction" in partial supply grids. The phrasing of it seems to imply that you can decide to Orion smuggle at each of these times. At no point is there an explicit definition of when Orion smuggling occurs. It also states "Orion smuggling can include moving money from partial supply grids into the main grid." A strict interpretation of this states that you can only smuggle EPs from a partial to the main grid during "supply, conversion and construction" and are limited to EPs being spent at those times. So if a parital grid had 10 EPs, and the main grid only did construction and conversion of 3.5 EPs, the partial supply grid would be left with 3 EPs. The loosest interpretation would be that Orion smuggling can move any/all EP out (up to the 28 EP limit) and you can do so at any time. This would mean that (413.46), destruction of the last supply point in a partial supply grid, is somewhat toothless.
I'm assuming that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 09:21 am: Edit
Couple of questions
Firstly - Was there any final decision on the SOP, raid, 'does not unblock supply' thing back in August (I've had a look and can't see anything, but it is spread about a bit). IIRC the question went - during a raid the phasing player destroys a ship blocking supply to a fleet. Is that fleet then in supply for opmove? If not, becuase raid's do not unblock supply and the SOP is wrong - then when does the effect of the 'ghost ship blocking supply' end? after opmove, the end of the turn? the end of the game?
Also - situation: I do a fighting retreat a with fleet from one combat, into a hex where both sides have another battle. Both of my fleets include carriers and escorts (the one retreating and the one in the second battle hex), the retreating fleet will have had escorts already assigned to carriers. The fleet in the hex it is retreating into, will not yet have assigned escorts.
Question: Becuase a fighting retreat is part of the same combat, what is the provision for assigning/re-ssigning escorts?
I can see three possibles:
1) I all my ships are put together and I can assign escorts/adhocs freely.
2) Escorts that were already assigned in the retreating fleet, stay with their carrier. All the rest of the ships are put together and carriers with unassigned escorts (from the static fleet) can be assigned escorts/ad-hocs from any of the other ships either in the retreating force or the static.
3)Escorts that were already assigned in the retreating fleet, stay with their carrier. The carriers in the stationary fleet can receive escorts/ad-hocs only from their own fleet not from the retreating portion.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:27 am: Edit
Got another silly little one - In single combat in a devastated planet hex, what is the effect of an RDU. If a L-DW is attacking a Z-FF at a planet with an RDU does the DW get +1 or is it evens. Thanks
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 12:48 pm: Edit
The RDU adds no offensive or defensive capabilities. Its true only purpose (as far as I can tell) is to create a battle hex where you have no ships thereby giving your reserves a point to hit.
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 02:32 pm: Edit
I don't think that single combat applies when a planet/base is involved.
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?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 04:19 pm: Edit
310.0 and 318.7 Say nothing of base defenders. An RDU cannot affect the battle in any way, as it is not a unit (Per SVC). 318.72 says add all the units....
A Fighting retreat is still a new battle, just with ships that happend to have already fought a battle.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 05:03 pm: Edit
Chris
I think you may well be right. Personally in the current game I'd rather points didn't carry over, and I got to re-assign escorts, but :-
Nick's post of the 27th August
My point was that the entire fighting retreat procedure IS part of retreat, which all takes place as part of one battle hex (even if it is partly in another hex), this is unlike other situations (non-fighting retreat situations) which have the specific rule (302.75) which provides that it is a new battle hex which can then be resolved in any order. In other words, fighting retreat does not create new battle hexes (it is simply a continuation of the current one).
The question was obout order of battles - but it may have other implications. If it is ruled the other way I'd rather know about it:-)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 05:19 pm: Edit
Good point.....I just don't see how it could possible be, since you are fighting different units.
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?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 06:18 pm: Edit
You would do one round of fighting retreat in that hex and then the entire force would further to retreat.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 06:20 pm: Edit
Unless you retreat into a hex containing a base, planet, etc. Then you only fight one round as a fighting retreat, then revert to normal combat. At least that's what I've been told.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 06:28 pm: Edit
If you fighting retreat into a defensive point then you do one round of approach battle then fall back into the planet/base and defend.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 06:37 pm: Edit
But since they are technically two different combats (even to the extent of them being different "battle hexes" according to the quote above), would you be able to resolve the remainder of the battle (after falling back to the defensive point) after resolving other hexes?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 06:43 pm: Edit
Let me check my rulebooks. From my understanding though the answer is no. You have to resolve that new hex right then and there.
I'll try to confirm in a few mins though.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 06:52 pm: Edit
On June 6th, Steve Cole posts...
(302.775) In the event that a “fighting retreat” enters a hex with a base (or a non-base unit which is treated as a base for combat purposes) special cases apply as follows:
A: If the hex contains a friendly base (e.g., SB, BATS, BS, MB, LTF) or planet, the conditions and penalties of a fighting retreat do not apply after the first approach battle. The retreating units are merged with the friendly units at the base/planet and conduct future rounds of combat normally (i.e., a fighting retreat just turned into a normal retreat).
So you fall into the defensive point and fight the rest of that hex normally (defending the base/planet). You would fight that hex immediately after the fighting retreat approach battle.
Of course, this is Nick's board area so I apologize to you in advance Nick if I over-stepped my grounds.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 07:05 pm: Edit
Easy on the discussion eh guys - I get the feeling Nick's got little time to spare, and sorting through lots of discussion to find the questions he needs to rule on will only make it longer.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 10:42 pm: Edit
I have a handfull of items I need to get done and sent back to Petrick for CL#27 F&E section (since CL#27 goes to press "REAL SOON"), and after that I can get back to the remaining questions here.
Nick
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 10:52 pm: Edit
With apologies to Nick for the clutter.
Please guys, lets keep this for questions and official answers.
Lets keep the clutter down, and certainly keep discussions of questions in the General discussions topic.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 03:43 am: Edit
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:27 am: Edit
Got another silly little one - In single combat in a devastated planet hex, what is the effect of an RDU. If a L-DW is attacking a Z-FF at a planet with an RDU does the DW get +1 or is it evens. Thanks
Just to add to the above - the Defender and original Planet owner are the same (both are Kzinti)- so the defender could normally re-devastate the planet for 10 damage taken, so is the defenders defence value increased by 10 (otherwise the planet does not aid the defence at all in Single/Advanced Combat -but does in normal combat)?
(i.e. can see three answers - No, No, but RDU increases it by 3 and Yes)
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 11:17 am: Edit
CL27 goes to press Monday. No further input will be considered after noon that day, and frankly, anything from now forward gets harder to shoehorn into the book.
That is "the schedule". Of course, the schedule didn't allow for Petrick and myself spending the last three days at half-speed due to sickness. We plan to work all day saturday and sunday to make the deadline.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 05:20 pm: Edit
A question regarding supply and retreat priorities (yawn, again), starting with the situation and interspersed with questions as the situation progresses.
A single base forms a given "Partial Supply Grid."
A group of ships was, previous to enemy movement, in supply from "The Supply Grid." (Note that's the main supply grid, containing the capital and the off-map area.)
That same group of ships, after the enemy moves and combat begins, is evaluated as out of supply from "The Supply Grid" at the instant of its combat. The group of ships is not in a hex with a base or planet.
That same group of ships is, at the instant of its combat, evaluated as being within a supply route of the base that forms the "Partial Supply Grid."
That same group of ships has not had any EP paid for its supply from that "Partial Supply Grid" and is not in the same hex as, or adjacent to the hex of, the base forming the "Partial Supply Grid."
Is that same group of ships "in supply" at the instant of combat or not?
That same group of ships then wants to retreat.
Must that same group of ships retreat closer to the base that forms the "Partial Supply Grid" or may that force disregard the supply portion of the retreat priorities because that same group of ships will be out of supply regardless of which hex it retreats to?
==
This question is also posted to General Discussion for your conversational pleasure.
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 08:08 pm: Edit
A question about SAF's.
Can a crippled SAF be used to score SIDS. IE: It was crippled on the prior turn, moves into the combat hex and attempts to score SIDS on the starbase.
If so, how is it treated. The rules parenthetically mention that a disrupted SAF is essentially "crippled". Does the defender have to direct on it to disrupt it, does it automatically roll on the disrupted table (since it was pre-crippled), canit be used at all? Is it used at full effectivenes but is disrupted for 6 points of damage unstead of 12? Is it treated as disrupted if not directed upoon, but if directed upon for 6 doesn't roll at all?
A speedy answer would be great if possible - or if anyone can refer to an old definitive ruling on this please chime in.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 11:12 am: Edit
An amendment/clarification to my above question: the group of ships desiring to retreat cannot possibly retreat such that they would be in supply from "The Supply Grid."
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 01:33 pm: Edit
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 06:52 pm: Edit
On June 6th, Steve Cole posts...
(302.775) In the event that a “fighting retreat” enters a hex with a base (or a non-base unit which is treated as a base for combat purposes) special cases apply as follows:
A: If the hex contains a friendly base (e.g., SB, BATS, BS, MB, LTF) or planet, the conditions and penalties of a fighting retreat do not apply after the first approach battle. The retreating units are merged with the friendly units at the base/planet and conduct future rounds of combat normally (i.e., a fighting retreat just turned into a normal retreat).
So you fall into the defensive point and fight the rest of that hex normally (defending the base/planet). You would fight that hex immediately after the fighting retreat approach battle.
......................
Just to clariy the above - if the Fighting Retreat Force enters an ENEMY base (Planet/Base, Ship acting as a base) - does the Fighting Retreat force fight the one round and then HAVE to retreat again, even if there are no enemey forces left there?
I assume yes, as SVC's post mentioned friendly bases, which stop a FR after 1 round at 0/10 BIR - but no comment on enemy bases.
Thanks
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 01:59 pm: Edit
Check Cap Log 26. 302.775 A.B.C.D
A. Friendly base or planet: Approach Battle at "Fighting Retreat" level, i.e. 0 and 10, then normal battle hex thereafter. (Fighting retreat becomes a normal retreat)
B. Friendly "base like unit" Tug with MB or FRD or whathaveyou: IF you have more friendly units than enemy units there, the FIghting retreat is canceled. (Fighting retreat becomes a normal retreat)
C. Friendly "base like unit": If you have less force than the enemy, then it is still a fighting retreat, one round then retreat again.
D. Enemy base or "base like unit". Fighting retreat as normal, all forces there fight one round (an approach, which the defender could decline) and then MUST retreat. (Attack has been called off essentially)
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 07:33 pm: Edit
Knowing our game situation I think what Paul is asking is what happens when there is just an RDU there (I gave him the wrong dates to find the original question I think):
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 04:06 am: Edit
Just want to check that I am understanding something correctly.
From the 'Q&A Archive' area
(508.16) Residual Defense Factors are not units in any sense. They do not block retreat or pursuit. You cannot re-devastate them over and over to rack up points. Any mention of Residual Defense Unit should be read as Residual Defense Factor.
For retreat purposes the hex is effectively cosidered empty.....so a fleet with two alternative hexes to retreat to, each having the same priority, one with a devastated enemy planet, the other empty, could choose to retreat to the planet and not have to do so under fighting retreat - ie the fleet could stay there rather than having to retreat again?
Answer:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 10:32 pm: Edit
James Southcott, yes, RDUs would not count as enemy units for retreat purposes.
It has become irrelevant in our game though.
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 07:41 pm: Edit
Scratch my question about the crippled SAF's. They don't have a crippled side We were just going off of the Cyberboard Gamebox, which represents a crippled side for them in error.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 08:50 pm: Edit
IMPORTANT THAT YOU READ THIS: When I discovered this, I wrote up a CL27 note about it and sent the note to the staff. But we go to press in something less than 20 hours and I cannot be certain any of them will see it. Here's the note. If I missed something and screwed this up worse than the first time, do be kind enough to let me know....
RAIDS AND SUPPLY
Something of a fiasco happened by accident, and was only discovered by a second accident. SVC was once asked if a raid on a given hex would, just by happening, affect supply through that hex. SVC said “No, raids cannot, in themselves, affect supply in any way.” So far, so good, but the next question that came up was what happens if the raid destroys the tug, base, or convoy that was a supply node. Nobody asked SVC, they just assumed his “not in any way” answer also applied and started rewrititing the Sequence of Play to have the supply check move to before the Raid step. SVC discovered this when a BBS post saying “SVC already ruled that...” intrigued SVC enough to get him to read a topic he normally stays away from. He denied making any SoP ruling, and the investigation exposed the misunderstanding.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 09:06 pm: Edit
Small thing, but the ruling in question involved having the opmove supply check before raid (so the raid could not have an effect) rather than after raid step as you've put.
Hope you are feeling better.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 09:26 pm: Edit
James: The point is that there never was such a ruling. The SoP does NOT change in ANY way, and it never did. I never changed it. I never issued any ruling that made, implied, or inferred a change to it. Raids certainly CAN affect supply if they blow up your convoy. But if he does a "province disruption raid" THAT has no effect on supply.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 09:28 pm: Edit
Ah, I see, James, you were fixing a typo. Yes, yes, that's correct, you found a typo and I'm glad you did before this mess got any worse.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 12:40 am: Edit
Never mind, answered my own Question
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 11:32 pm: Edit
Ok, here's one. If I have carriers, and their escorts are moved away to another carrier during Op Move, or they never had any to begin with, can I use CEDS to give them escorts?
By Erik Davis (Hi_Stik) on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 10:11 am: Edit
I have a question about tugs and MB's. Is a tug w/ an MB under tow the same as a tug setting up an MB? In other words, is it a valid "base" target that would warrant an approach battle? My friend argues that since it hasn't been given the setup command, then it is a moving target he doesn't have to include in his battle force. I'm afraid I can't find in the rules where he is wrong. Can anyone elaborate on this?
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 06:24 pm: Edit
This one has probably been asked before - carriers and escorts can retrograde and repair after combat. If a group includes some uncrippled ships along with cripples, can just the cripples retro, or does it have to be the whole group?
If the answer is the whole group must retro or none, then a second queston - 515.15 allows carrier escorts to shifted in and out of groups at the end of combat. If a crippled escort is shifted out of the group at the end of combat is it still eligible for CEDS retro?
Thanks
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 11:29 pm: Edit
Pending questions downloaded to this point.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 09:34 am: Edit
OK, I know this has been asked before, and the latest answer I've seen says that even with 1 point of damage left over, and nothing that the point could force you to cripple, one can still cripple a ship for 6, 7, or even more minus points. If that is true, then I don't understand the point of 'plus' points. Why carry a plus point if you can cripple something else and make the next battle round harder for your opponent to direct something? Allowing this has a very 'gamey' feel to it, and if using plus and minus points, then if the damage left over can't cripple something, the player should have to take them as plus points. In case I'm being vague here, I'll use an example:
Say a Klingon fleet has 6xD7 in it, and it takes 17 damage. Now, after crippling 2xD7, 1 plus point should be left over. But, as I see it currently, another D7 could be crippled resulting in 7 minus points, even though the damage left is less than half of any current defense factor. Is it correct that a player can do this, and never have to carry a plus point? Sorry for being long-winded, and thanks!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 03:18 pm: Edit
If there is nothing to force you to use the last point, i.e. you have one point of damage left, and your smallest defense factor is 3, then you DON'T resolve that point. It is a plus point for the next round.
If you have one point left, and your smallest defense factor in your battle force is 1 or 2, then you HAVE to resolve the one point of damage, but you can resolve it against any unit, even a 20 pt battleship (making lots of minus points for next round.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 05:02 pm: Edit
Ah, I see. The rules are a bit ambiguous on that point that you can not take the damage if the damage isn't at least 50% of the smallest defense factor. The rules actually say the player MAY choose not to take the damage in that case.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 06:11 pm: Edit
Ugh. Another question, but theoretically this should be easy. I remember a discussion a while ago in which people discussed the Old Colonies shipyard and overproduction. Since overproduction can create a hull without a shipyard, the first couple of turns of OCS production given in F&E2K doesn't mean anything. I don't have the references since I am away from my book. I remember this was resolved, but I can't remember the result. I tried searching for the answer by keyword search and perusing through the Q&A Archive file, but I didn't find anything. Does anyone know the result of this discussion?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 06:51 pm: Edit
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/erratfne.html
(511.321) Costs are not doubled on the 3rd or 4th turn.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 10:11 pm: Edit
Nick, back on 10/18 you made a ruling on the status of the Fed Home and 3rd Fleet in the case of a limited war.
________________________________________
Quote:
Paul Howard: So much discussion here and only because I misunderstood the question. Actually I didn't realize he was talking about that special Fed rule, and was answering the question in general for any inactive fleet, my apologies. In the special fed limited war case, since those fleets can maneuver anywhere in fed space, they must be released (but with a restriction on leaving fed space), so the MBs from those fleets could be set up. Other bases in those areas could be upgraded, etc...
________________________________________
James Southcott had asked for an appeal at that time but it got lost in the clutter, I would like to second that appeal, this gives too much freedom for the feds to beef up defences for an attack they (historically) never saw coming..
Having the Feds be able to move the home fleet up and to counter any Klingon ship movements is bad enough but I got MB's going up in the Fed capitol (and being upgraded) and the inner BATS getting upgraded to SB's.. thats game over for the coalition...
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 10:21 pm: Edit
Nick, if your ruling on Minus points is correct then it gives huge advantage in Minus points to the side with more fighters.....
If I have a carrier group with 6 fighters, then I can take 5 fighters as damage and then cripple my CV for -9, becuase I have that one fighter left and that 1 point of damage is enough to kill it.....but I don't have to take the damage on that fighter.
That seems a little unfair to me....
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 04:12 am: Edit
Chris
Reading Nicks ruling - although he says there is nothing to force you to take one damage if it is less than half your smalles defence factor. He doesn't actually say that you must not take it and it must stay as a plus point. Even with the ruling I think it is always legitimate to resolve damage up to one point remaining and then cripple something else, no matter what your smallest defence factor is.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 07:28 am: Edit
Sorry to clutter up....
Chris - Nick (and James) is correct.
Example 3 x D5 and 2 x F5, and an E4. It takes 12 damage - you cripple a D5 for 7 and an E4 for 4. So you have taken 11 out of the 12. The crippled E4 has a defensive factor of 2 and you have 1 damage point to take, you MUST allocate the 1 damage (as 1 is 50% or greater of 2) - on something - so you could cripple a second D5 and be owed 6.
Example 2 - Same line but 13 damage taken - you cripple a D5 and a F5 for a total of 12. You have 1 point to take - the weakest ship, is the crippled F5, but as 1 is less than 50% of 3, you are allowed to keep it and add it to the next round - or allocate it on a ship.
Reason NOT to overcripple - Last round of a battle and no persuit or the persuit battle!
Tim - The Feds only have limited numbers of Tugs - so they are not going to be doing it eveywhere - and while the Feds can build bases in certain areas - the Coalition can build them everywhere!
What this shows is that there IS a reason to attack the Feds on turn 7 (i.e. the historical turn of the invasion, which does have them unpreparied), rather than let them actually be prepaired (yes, strange I know, an Alliance member actually being ready to be attacked!) - the Federation was pretty stupid, but, not that stupid!
The Coalition gets lots of benefits by NOT attacking the Federation on turns 7-9 (namely reduced Alliance money on turns 7-10) and allowing them to allocate more forces to the Kzinti and Hydran front - the Federation having those 3 tugs and 3 MB's for deployment is one of the Alliance benefits.
...but to keep the post legal..
Question -
Nick, How are you? (I'll post the Q in Discussions!)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 09:54 am: Edit
Paul, James, from what Nick just said, if there is one point left and nothing to that REQUIRES you to take the damage i.e. you have one point left and nothing that is defense factor 1 or 2 on the battle line, then you MUST take a plus point into the next round.
Could you clarify please Nick?
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 10:07 am: Edit
Joe, and I'm pretty sure SVC, clarified long before that you can always choose to score the spare 1 point of damage, even if the smallest unit is large enough to not require the damage be scored. I believe it was clarified in a Captain's Log somewhere (which would be much easier to look through than to dig through a year and a half's worth of archives).
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 10:58 am: Edit
Can a defender of a neutral zone planet apply damage to the minor neutral planet for devastation?
My second question is on recapturing a planet. the rules (413.2) state that when a planet is captured (or recaptured) the planet will form part of the supply grid the turn at the start of the next player turn(therefore if the attacker abandons the planet the defender gets to count the planet in its supply grid at the start of his next turn-assuming it is part of said grid). 508.22 states that if a planet is captured (nothing is stated about recapture) then it will provide economy on the second subsequent turn of continuous possession. Does this second subsequent turn apply to a recapture of a planet as well?
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 11:05 am: Edit
Does a Demonhawk with carrier pods and troop pods lose its escorts attack value if it is using its g factor to improve a capture attempt?
(521.372C) Escorted ships cannot themselves be escorts and vice versa. No ship can escort more than one ship (including SFGs, ground combat ships, maulers, carriers, etc.). Auxiliary carriers could be assigned to escort troop ships, but not if they themselves have been assigned escorts. A tug with both carrier and troop pods would be treated as an escorted commando ship not as a carrier if making a ground assault.
I guess the key question is does the act of using a g factor to improve capture attempt count as a ground assault for the purposes of (521.372C)
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 11:17 am: Edit
There is a recently-imposed limit on how many minus points you can carry over (seven, isn't it?) so while you can take one point and cripple a B10 it isn't going to do you much good.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 11:33 am: Edit
That was only for a pursued force
By John Kasper (Jvontr) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 12:11 pm: Edit
(Maybe this is the right place to ask)
I would assume that the "capital" in the Earth system is, in fact, Earth, but I can come up with a number of plausable candidates for the other positions (major = Mars? Luna? Minor = Luna? Mercury? Jupiter?). Is there an official list of the names of the planets in the Capital Hexes, and if so, where?
Thanks,
JEK
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 01:01 pm: Edit
There really isn't one. We created the list for the Klingon planets in Gurps Klingons, which has a huge planetary survey chapter (biggest in the book) detailing all planets in all systems.
By John Kasper (Jvontr) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 02:42 pm: Edit
SVC - >>There really isn't one.
Thank you for the answer.
Do you mind if I take a crack at some of it?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 10:21 pm: Edit
Ok, so you can always use 1 point of damage if you wish and cripple something for minus points, even if there is nothing small enough to require you to do so.
Is that correct?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 10:47 pm: Edit
Yes, rule (302.61) says that when the remaining damage is less than half of the smallest available defense factor, the remaining damage points MAY BE IGNORED (i.e. would become plus points the next round). It says "may be", so you presumably still have the option to cripple something and get minus points instead.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 12:08 am: Edit
Ah--ha. OK, thanks much.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 08:41 am: Edit
Maybe that should be changed, then. Seems wrong to me that I can cripple a C8 and force a significant number of minus points on someone just because I had an E4 in the line and had 2 pts left to allocate.
I'd always thought that if using minus points, that the normal rules (302.61) were superceeded by the injunction that one had to come as close to meeting the damage scored as possible?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 10:29 am: Edit
See (302.612) "A player could cripple a dreadnought, or even a B10, to resolve a single point of damage ..."
However, bases must take SIDS rather than cripple or destroy to generate minus points (302.615) and carrier groups must take CEDS damage (302.614).
The most excessive abuses have been eliminated, most recently by limiting a pursued force to a maximum of 7 minus points.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 11:04 am: Edit
Hmm, okay, that's definitely a change from pre-2K. I still think it's a bit twinky, though. What would be the justification to cripple a heavy cruiser when there was just barely enough to scratch an E4?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 12:18 pm: Edit
==========================================================
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 11:21 am: Edit
Nick, does a monitor count for pinning?
ANSWER: A monitor cannot pin (too slow), its fighters and PFs can.
==========================================================
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 11:34 am: Edit
1. If you have 1 point of damage left to take, and that 1 point is not half of any remaining defense factor can you still take that one point of damage and gain the minus points for it? (Assume no fighters are in the battle line)
ANSWER: Rule (302.61) says the point MAY BE treated as a plus point, so that implies you could instead overcripple something (generating minus points).
2. Can casual carriers deploy their fighters forward from the support echelon to fight?
ANSWER: Sure, see rules (302.351) and (501.4) and (302.332-B).
==========================================================
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 12:58 pm: Edit
Another question about Aux Warships. I've noticed that some, like the Aux PFT andAux DB ships have in their movement rules that they can use reaction movement, and extended reaction, but they can only move one hex max in reaction period. Then, I looked up Aux CVs and troop ships, and noticed that they also can use reaction, but the same restriction is not explicitly spelled out. Can all aux warships use reaction movement, but only for one hex total, or are these different on purpose. Thanks!
ANSWER: Rule (513.135) in Combined Ops says aux carriers can only react one hex, (521.61) in combined ops says troopships cannot react at all.
==========================================================
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 07:52 am: Edit
Specifics - Turn 8 - Coalition have not invaded Federation Space - so Feds are at Limited War.
On Alliance Turn 8, can the Kzinti capture the Neutral Zone hexes between the Federation and Klingon space? As far as I can tell, yes, as neither are future beligerants.
If the Kzinti can occupy those hexes, can the Coalition attack them without invading/starting war with the Federation?
Thanks
ANSWER: The Federation is a future belligerant. It means future belligerant in the war, not necessarily a belligerant of the person wanting to grab the hexes. Kzinti cannot grab those hexes before the Feds enter the war.
============================================================
By Jim Mattaboni (Jmatta) on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 08:18 am: Edit
Nick,
Can we put the question and the answers to the Questions you answer in a document somewhere else on the board. It is hard to track down questions with the corosponding answers through all the posts
Jim
ANSWER: Well, that is what this topic is for. The problem is there is so much discussion going on between the question and when I get a chance to answer it that it gets hard to follow for everyone. So everyone please keep the discussions out of this topic! See the rules at the top of this topic, there should be questions, answers, and maybe appeals. There should not be any post that is not one of these three things. If you want to discuss a question or ruling there are other topics to do that in. If you really want to bring something to my attention regarding a posted question, you can e-mail me at ngblank2000@yahoo.com For now, I have repeated the questions before each answer. Also, many of the questions and answers end up publised in Captain's Log.
============================================================
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 09:45 am: Edit
Can a defender of a neutral zone planet apply damage to the minor neutral planet for devastation?
ANSWER: Good question. I would have to say sometimes yes sometimes no. When the neutral planet is first attacked by one side, and their opponent is simply operating the neutral planets PDU defenses, then yes, the "defender" could take voluntary devestation damage, this includes the case where the defender has his own units in the hex assiting the neutral planet (not also attacking it) as per (503.63). The attacker would be firing on the planet since they have to devestate it to capture it. On the other hand, (503.63) says that once a neutral planet is captured, it is treated as a captured enemy planet. When the enemy comes to itself capture the once neutral planet in turn, they would not fire on the planet (it is already devestated, it can't recover unless it becomes neutral again), so there could be no voluntary devestation damage.
508.22 states that if a planet is captured (nothing is stated about recapture) then it will provide economy on the second subsequent turn of continuous possession. Does this second subsequent turn apply to a recapture of a planet as well?
ANSWER: Yes.
============================================================
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 01:55 pm: Edit
Can a Commercial Convoy be raided in the neutral zone of a future belligerent? Example, the Fed/Kzinti ComConv in a neutral zone hex between the Marquis zone and Federation space during Turns 1 through 6.
ANSWER: Sure.
What effect does crippling have on an SAF, beyond reducing the damage necessary to destroy it?
ANSWER: SAFs cannot be crippled (no crippled side). They can be "disrupted" while they are on an attack run during a battle hex, which reduces the damage they might do to their target.
============================================================
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 11:36 pm: Edit
Nick
When exactly does Orion smuggling of EP happen? Specifically, is it limited or can it happen at any time?
Now, (410.34) details using Orion smuggling to pay for "supply, conversion and construction" in partial supply grids. The phrasing of it seems to imply that you can decide to Orion smuggle at each of these times. At no point is there an explicit definition of when Orion smuggling occurs. It also states "Orion smuggling can include moving money from partial supply grids into the main grid." A strict interpretation of this states that you can only smuggle EPs from a partial to the main grid during "supply, conversion and construction" and are limited to EPs being spent at those times. So if a parital grid had 10 EPs, and the main grid only did construction and conversion of 3.5 EPs, the partial supply grid would be left with 3 EPs. The loosest interpretation would be that Orion smuggling can move any/all EP out (up to the 28 EP limit) and you can do so at any time. This would mean that (413.46), destruction of the last supply point in a partial supply grid, is somewhat toothless.
I'm assuming that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
ANSWER: SOP Step 1D handles moving EPs from the partial grid back to the main grid, so I imagine Orion smuggling of this type (partial to main) would happen only at that point. Rule (410.34) allows smuggling (in the other direction) from the main grid to partial grids for various purposes, and I imagine that this type of suggling would happen when you need it to happen, although this is usually in the production step it would seem (construction/conversions).
============================================================
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 09:21 am: Edit
Firstly - Was there any final decision on the SOP, raid, 'does not unblock supply' thing back in August (I've had a look and can't see anything, but it is spread about a bit). IIRC the question went - during a raid the phasing player destroys a ship blocking supply to a fleet. Is that fleet then in supply for opmove? If not, becuase raid's do not unblock supply and the SOP is wrong - then when does the effect of the 'ghost ship blocking supply' end? after opmove, the end of the turn? the end of the game?
ANSWER: As SVC just posted, the fact that a raiding ship was in a hex during the raid phase has no bearing on supply during the turn (the previous presence of a raiding ship in the raid phase in a given hex is not considered when checking for a valid supply path later in the turn), but, if the raiding ship destroyed a unit (such as a supply tug or mobile base), then there is of course an effect from that. There is no change to the SOP, it is correct on this point.
Question: Becuase a fighting retreat is part of the same combat, what is the provision for assigning/re-ssigning escorts?
I can see three possibles:
1) I all my ships are put together and I can assign escorts/adhocs freely.
2) Escorts that were already assigned in the retreating fleet, stay with their carrier. All the rest of the ships are put together and carriers with unassigned escorts (from the static fleet) can be assigned escorts/ad-hocs from any of the other ships either in the retreating force or the static.
3)Escorts that were already assigned in the retreating fleet, stay with their carrier. The carriers in the stationary fleet can receive escorts/ad-hocs only from their own fleet not from the retreating portion.
ANSWER: I would imagine that anything from the new hex gets assigned at this point, ships in retreat were assigned already, but remember that some rules allow changes to groups during retreat (such as detaching crippled escorts). Number 3 makes the most sense to me. You are retreating in disarray, trying to punch through enemy forces, are at a disadvantage, you are not organizing a new offensive in the next hex.
============================================================
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:27 am: Edit
In single combat in a devastated planet hex, what is the effect of an RDU. If a L-DW is attacking a Z-FF at a planet with an RDU does the DW get +1 or is it evens. Thanks
ANSWER: I can't see an RDU having any effect under single combat. The 3 defense factors would not give a bonus to one side.
============================================================
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.
============================================================
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 05:20 pm: Edit
A question regarding supply and retreat priorities (yawn, again), starting with the situation and interspersed with questions as the situation progresses.
A single base forms a given "Partial Supply Grid."
A group of ships was, previous to enemy movement, in supply from "The Supply Grid." (Note that's the main supply grid, containing the capital and the off-map area.)
That same group of ships, after the enemy moves and combat begins, is evaluated as out of supply from "The Supply Grid" at the instant of its combat. The group of ships is not in a hex with a base or planet.
That same group of ships is, at the instant of its combat, evaluated as being within a supply route of the base that forms the "Partial Supply Grid."
That same group of ships has not had any EP paid for its supply from that "Partial Supply Grid" and is not in the same hex as, or adjacent to the hex of, the base forming the "Partial Supply Grid."
Is that same group of ships "in supply" at the instant of combat or not?
ANSWER: It is not in supply at the instant of combat (since it does not have a valid supply path), but it will not fight at a penalty since it was in supply at the start of the turn.
That same group of ships then wants to retreat.
Must that same group of ships retreat closer to the base that forms the "Partial Supply Grid" or may that force disregard the supply portion of the retreat priorities because that same group of ships will be out of supply regardless of which hex it retreats to?
ANSWER: If none of the possible retreat hexes have a valid supply path, then supply does not have an effect on retreat.
============================================================
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 08:08 pm: Edit
A question about SAF's.
Can a crippled SAF be used to score SIDS. IE: It was crippled on the prior turn, moves into the combat hex and attempts to score SIDS on the starbase.
ANSWER: SAFs cannot be crippled as they have no crippled side. They can be disrupted while on their "attack run" and as a result would likely do less damage to their target.
============================================================
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 06:52 pm: Edit
Just to clariy the above - if the Fighting Retreat Force enters an ENEMY base (Planet/Base, Ship acting as a base) - does the Fighting Retreat force fight the one round and then HAVE to retreat again, even if there are no enemey forces left there?
ANSWER: Right, with an enemy base you fight one round BIR10/BIR0 (which is effectively an approach battle), then you retreat again.
============================================================
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 11:32 pm: Edit
Ok, here's one. If I have carriers, and their escorts are moved away to another carrier during Op Move, or they never had any to begin with, can I use CEDS to give them escorts?
ANSWER: See (308.132), it cannot be used to replace escorts that were never built or lost on previous turns. This would include escorts moved away voluntarily, i.e. you cannot break your groups apart and then use CEDS to "replace" escorts.
============================================================
By Erik Davis (Hi_Stik) on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 10:11 am: Edit
I have a question about tugs and MB's. Is a tug w/ an MB under tow the same as a tug setting up an MB? In other words, is it a valid "base" target that would warrant an approach battle? My friend argues that since it hasn't been given the setup command, then it is a moving target he doesn't have to include in his battle force. I'm afraid I can't find in the rules where he is wrong. Can anyone elaborate on this?
ANSWER: If it has not been declared as being set up, then it is just another ship, there is no approach battle etc... since there is nothing keeping the tug from moving away from you. If it is setting up the base, then the base is stuck in place, and you go through the approach battle procedure.
============================================================
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 06:24 pm: Edit
This one has probably been asked before - carriers and escorts can retrograde and repair after combat. If a group includes some uncrippled ships along with cripples, can just the cripples retro, or does it have to be the whole group?
If the answer is the whole group must retro or none, then a second queston - 515.15 allows carrier escorts to shifted in and out of groups at the end of combat. If a crippled escort is shifted out of the group at the end of combat is it still eligible for CEDS retro?
ANSWER: As you note the rules allow you to break up groups after combat, so you could just retro parts of the original group. A crippled escort could retro by itself.
============================================================
That is everything I grabbed in the download. I should be able to get to the remaining ones tonight or tomorrow.
Nick
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 12:50 pm: Edit
OK, I am curious as to what now defines a valid supply path? Can a partial supply grid ever have a valid supply path by definition? Where would salvage go if ships (destroyed) are in a partial supply grid that can not connect to the main grid?
These questions are in reference to Todd's question (and recent answer) from Friday Nov 7th. Thanks!
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 02:17 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 02:54 pm: Edit
>By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:27 am: Edit
In single combat in a devastated planet hex, what is the effect of an RDU. If a L-DW is attacking a Z-FF at a planet with an RDU does the DW get +1 or is it evens. Thanks
ANSWER: I can't see an RDU having any effect under single combat. The 3 defense factors would not give a bonus to one side.OK, I am curious as to what now defines a valid supply path? Can a partial supply grid ever have a valid supply path by definition? Where would salvage go if ships (destroyed) are in a partial supply grid that can not connect to the main grid?
These questions are in reference to Todd's question (and recent answer) from Friday Nov 7th. Thanks!By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:27 am: Edit
Let me go ahead and appeal this. If a RDU has 3 defense, then the combined defense of the Kzinti forces in this hex ought to be 7. Even if the Kzinti could, they would never (unless trying to lose) accept approach. This doesn't give the Kzinti a bonus on the roll, but it should take a bonus away from the Lyrans. IOW, where does it say that RDU don't count in combat when it clearly says that they have a 3 defense?
ANSWER: My point is that the RDU doesn't move, or shoot back. So if you are fighting your ship vs one enemy ship and an RDU, how can the RDU have any effect on the outcome? Surely you will simply ignore the RDU while fighting the enemy ship (which is the only threat), and after dispatching that, you can safely destroy the RDU for no cost. The defender cannot force you to fire at the RDU. The modifiers in single ship combat assume you are actively engaging all the targets (which is why you combine them together). I see no reason to "add in" the RDU in single combat. Rule (318.721) says combine the units for single combat. An RDU is not a unit, it simply means you must have at least some offensive power to capture the planet that has one. If you still want to appeal, then speak up.
==========================================
Dale Lloyd Fields:
(511.321) states that "The old shipyard produces three free fighter factors (for hybrid ships) per turn..." My question is whether this means:
A) The OCShipyard produces three free true fighter factors per turn, but these can only be used on Hybrid ships. For example, the Hydran could not substitute a CV for an RN and use OCS fighter factors for it.
B) The OCShipyard produces three free hybrid factors per turn (1.5 true fighter factors). These could be used on any carrier built at the OCS (even a CV substituted for an RN).
ANSWER: I believe it is B, they are three hybrid factors per turn, which means under the annualized system (Advanced Ops) you get 3 true factors per year. It is clear these old colony free factors can be used on true carriers from the Iron Chancellor rule (525.316-D) which states that the free factors can be used.
===========================================
Don Sample:
I have a simple question: I am a very new player playing in my first game (a 4 powers scenario to make it simple). As the Kzin (on turn 2 klingon), I currently have uninvited guests (22 ships) attempting to hold a fiesta on the Duke's starbase. I have 12 SE defending, which is (seemingly) inadaquate. However, I have a 12 ship reserve fleet on the Count's starbase, which I could reserve to the fight. The problem is that I'm not sure if they are released. I checked the listing to see and it wasn't very clear, stating that "fleets released by klingon attack" plus home fleet. Could I get a clarification on this?
ANSWER: Welcome to the game! It means that any deployment zone entered by Klingon forces get released. So if the Klingons entered any province in the count's deployment zone when they attacked, then the Count's fleet is released.
============================================
Harry Theodore
I am returning to F&E after a 10 year hiatus and have 2 questions. They probably have been asked before, but here goes.
1. On turn 1 of the campaign game can the Lyrans (liberate) neutral zone hexes exclusively between the Lyran and Klingon empires?
ANSWER: Welcome back! Rule (503.61) in F&E2K specifies that the Lyrans can capture any of the Lyran-Klingon neutral zone hexes on turn one. They cannot capture any NZ hexes in the Kzinti-Klingon border on turn 1. They cannot enter 0805 on turn 1.
2. A monitor question. Monitors are 10-6 factor units that use a battle pallet. This generic pallet is assumed to be included in the value of the monitor by my reading of the rules. When a fighter or PFT pallet is added to the monitor, what are the new values? My reasoning is that if a tug changes pallets, it doesn't keep the old pallet values and the new, why should a monitor be different? I could not find anywhere in the rules which actually addresses this issue.
ANSWER: Actually, rule (519.41) in combined ops specifies that the exchange of the support pallet for a carrier or PFT pallet does not reduce the monitor's original combat factors in any way.
====================================
That should be everything taken care of except for the appeals. If I missed anything, let me know.
Nick
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 12:54 am: Edit
Nick,
I'll back up James appeal of the RDU/single combat issue, but with a particular caveat I'll detail in a moment.
"Surely you will simply ignore the RDU while fighting the enemy ship (which is the only threat), and after dispatching that, you can safely destroy the RDU for no cost."
The problem I see here is that goes against the logic used for the defender being able to absorb 10 points damage on a planet (to devastate the planet). Surely if the attacking fleet wanted to kill the enemy fleet they would just ignore the defenseless planet, fire on the enemy ships to kill or drive them off, and then devastate the planet at their leisure.
But that's not how it works - the defender could absorb 10 points of damage and then run. If that is true, then logically the single ship could do something similar, like using the PDU's 3 point defense factor to assist in the single ship duel.
Now, for the caveat: I personally don't believe the defender *should* be allowed to self-devastate to absorb the damage, and I think that rule should be changed. But until it is changed, both situations should be using the same logic. Either the planet is a distraction, or it isn't; it should be the same for both situations.
Thanks, Nick.
By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 01:06 am: Edit
Nick, on the RDU thing -
In ordinary combat the RDU has an effect - it'll absorb the first three damage points done by the enemy. A 15 factor force up against a F5 and an RDU would need to do 40% damage to cripple the F5 (a 1/36 chance assuming sensible BIR picks and variable BIR), whereas it would be a 35/36 chance if the F5 was alone. Since the RDU has that much effect in ordinary combat, I think it should have some effect in single combat.
My guess as to what an RDU would be in SFB is a cloud of admin shuttles - one or two dozen perhaps. They can't do much by themselves against a real warship, but they can provide cover for ships and take a fair bit of firepower to remove.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 01:44 am: Edit
Nick: opn the RDU/single ship combat -
Note that (318.7) specifies ships and SEs of fighters/PFs. RDUs are not a ship and has no SEs, therefore it cannot be added in for single ship combat.
Raids are slightly different as one side is forcing the battle at the planet (and has to fight all units at the planet).
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 04:03 am: Edit
Kevin - it's not me appealing - I think it's perfectly logical a captain would leave a target with no weapons until after you had dealt with a target with weapons.
Another question on fighting retreats - planet defended by a fleet. Before the last PDU is gone the defending fleet does a fighting retreat. Which battle is fought first? Round with the last PDU at the planet or the fighting retreat between the fleet originally defending the planet and wherever it went?
Thanks
By Don Sample (Kailae) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 08:39 am: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
ANSWER: Welcome to the game! It means that any deployment zone entered by Klingon forces get released. So if the Klingons entered any province in the count's deployment zone when they attacked, then the Count's fleet is released.
________________________________________
This then, by deployment zone, means basically anything in the count's territory, or anything within range of a reserve fleet?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 11:46 am: Edit
Don,
Anything in Count's territory.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 04:40 pm: Edit
Ok, can I get an example of when a planet
1. Becomes part of the supply grid
and
2. Becomes part of the economics. (produces captured income)
I always thought that it was a supply point on the beginning of the capturing players next turn, after the opponents turn, and then produced income on the following capturing players turn...
So...
Turn 1C= captured planet
Turn 1a= NO CHANGE
Turn 2C= captured planet becomes supply node
Turn 2A= NO CHANGE
Turn 3C= captured planet is supply node and produces income for the capturing player.
Thanks.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 04:44 pm: Edit
Also,
Can a ship or group of ships retreat offmap during combat and then use retrograde or CEDS or anything else for that matter to then move back on the map in a later phase?
Situation: crippled Kzinti escorts retreat from the capital to the Barony (offmap) during an assault, can they later used CEDS retro to go to the Marquis (on map)?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 09:02 pm: Edit
In regards to:
ANSWER: My point is that the RDU doesn't move, or shoot back. So if you are fighting your ship vs one enemy ship and an RDU, how can the RDU have any effect on the outcome? Surely you will simply ignore the RDU while fighting the enemy ship (which is the only threat), and after dispatching that, you can safely destroy the RDU for no cost. The defender cannot force you to fire at the RDU. The modifiers in single ship combat assume you are actively engaging all the targets (which is why you combine them together). I see no reason to "add in" the RDU in single combat. Rule (318.721) says combine the units for single combat. An RDU is not a unit, it simply means you must have at least some offensive power to capture the planet that has one. If you still want to appeal, then speak up.<
I do want to speak up and actually to expand the topic a bit.
I am not impressed by the logic of the argument. Logically, an entity with a FE defense factor must exist in some form in SFB. If an entity exists and can suck up damage in a massive combat, which it is undisputed that a RDU can, then it exists and can suck up damage in a smaller combat. If one takes a RDU to be the glimmerings of rebuilding on a devastated world, then one might be comprised of a couple of agricultural or mining stations, a commercial platform, or some other such very lightly armed (zero compot at FE scale) but capable of absorbing significant damage (three defensive strength at FE scale), then those items surely could help a defending ship in a battle. The ship could, at least, use them to shoot down or identify a seeking weapon or two, launch shuttles, etcetera. Beyond that, of course, a defending ship need only dive behind the planet housing the RDU to break seeking weapon/PPD lock, provide perfect cover during cloaking, etcetera. In sum, any asset is useful in combat; go over to the SFB board and ask if anyone thinks that E4 vs FF is close to as balanced a fight as E4 vs (FF + commercial platform).
All that said, 310.0 specifically says that units are counted toward defense strength for purposes of the calculation, so if a RDU is not a unit then it truly cannot count in (310.0 single combat), (318.71 single combat), or (318.72 small scale combat). In my opinion, a RDU ought to be a unit, just as the item being named a "unit" by rules writers clearly stating that "ship" and "unit" are terms used with utmost discretion clearly implies was intended.
However, 310.0 refers to single combat as involving "only two relatively equal units." If a RDU is not a unit, it must be correct that a (310.0 single combat) cannot involve a RDU and any hex with a RDU involved cannot be resolved using (310.0 single combat) rules? If a RDU can be involved in single combat, under what rule is that ruling justified, given that a RDU is not a unit and the rule does say "only...units?" This is further rules justification for believing RDU were intended to be units when this rule was written, which was long before such niceties as fighting retreat.
318.71 refers to mandatory use of the 310.0 system, "If there is one ship on each side..." A question: may there also be additional, non-ship forces on a side? If not, then of course (318.71 single combat) cannot involve a RDU, fighter (even from a hybrid or true carrier fighting on one side), PF (even from a PFT fighting on one side), base, PDU/PGB, convoy, etcetera. I assume, therefore, that the answer everyone expects is "yes, a (318.71 single combat) may involve units beyond one single ship." However, if yes is the answer, then under what rule are non-ship units eligible for 318.71? Further, if the answer is yes then forces qualifying for single combat would include (4x PGB and E4A), (cripMB, cripBATS with fighters, and FTS), (any hybrid warship with less than 15 compot total), and (F5, 2x FRD, cripMB, and PGB). Most of those feel nothing like single combat, but several include units of less general, orbital combat utility than a commercial platform or agricultural station (I'd park the FRDs under the phaser-3's of the RDU's assets in an instant-it's far better than nothing).
Related question: does 318.71 replace the 310.0 eligibility criteria for single combat, or may a fight become single combat through either 318.71 or 310.0? If 310.0 still applies, then does 318.73 modify the eligibility criteria in 310.0, or does 318.73 only modify 318?
318.72 states "If one or both sides have more than one ship, but if both have no more than 3 ships or equivalents and no more than 14 attack factors, you must use (310.0) with the following modifications." If a hex contains RDU/PGB/PDU/base, then it may meets the first third of the criteria ("...more than one ship") as a ship plus one or more items is more than a ship. However, if a hex contains one or more non-ship items then it cannot meet the second third of the criteria ("...no more than 3 ships or equivalents...") as X number of ships plus other items is, by definition, more than just X number of ships or equivalents. Does this rule specifically say that any battle involving RDU/PGB/PDU/base may not be resolved using small scale combat rules?
Further questions:
Is the compot reduction for escorts not escorting taken into account before determining eligibility for 318.72 or after (when does an E4A without a carrier count as 1 compot)?
Would a PDU/PGB/MB/BATS, with its attendant EW capability, be eligibe for a single/small scale combat EW bonus, or to cancel the other side's EW bonus, under 318.74?
Would a force of D7 and MB (facing appropriate opponents) be forced to use 318.71? Would the force be forced to use 318.72? Please explain the ruling.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 12:25 am: Edit
Todd,
See CL26: (508.16) Residual Defense Factors are not units in any sense. Any mention of Residual Defense Unit should be read as Residual Defense Factor.
From what I recall, the residual defense can be considered the local militia, backed up by surviving regular personnel. Not enough to cause any damage. A few well placed phaser barrages will disrupt them and send them back into the hills.
I agree with Nick, an RDF is worth nothing in (310.0) or (318.7).
2) If one side has a ship plus fighters then it has more than just one ship, and doesn't qualify under (318.71) to go to (310.0). (318.722) was specifically written for hybrid ships/carriers/PFTs.
3) First check (318.71), then check (310.0). If one side is a Gorn DNH and the other is a Romulan SNA, (318.71) says to use (310.0). Then (310.0) points out that the DNH is so much bigger that the SNA can't hurt it, so use regular combat. If the Romulans have a CNH instead, (318.71) still points you to (310.0, where single combat would be used. Notice that in this case, both sides exceed 14 attack factors.
4) If one side has a ship plus a PGB, it does not exceed 3 ships or equivalents. Use (318.7).
5) The escort ship loses its combat factor for before determining eligiblity.
6) Bases can use EW.
7) A D7 and an MB have a total of 16 factors, and so do not use Small Scale Combat. A D7 and a PGB have a total of 11 factors and would use (318.72).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 04:12 am: Edit
Question on 310.0 and 318.7
Is there a maximum on the +/- points that can be accrued? Also, some clarifications..
For example....2xF5+F5S plus a Prime Team on the F5 vs. a Hydran LN.
Lets say the Klingons are on the defensive
Klingons have 12 COMPOT, Hydrans have 6, difference of 6 COMPOT. Klingons get -2 for 5 or greater COMPOT, -1 for the Prime Team and -1 for the Scout, for a possible net -4 on the die roll.
Now, 318.74 says that scouts get a -1 for self protection jamming, do they get that when both attacking and defending i.e. a +1 when attacking? Prime Teams are listed as giving a +1, do they give a -1 when defending?
I always thought there was a max +/- of 2, but I could be mistaken, as it looks like if you were using a GSX on a raid with a Prime Team you could get +1 (X-scout),+1(X-Ship),+1(Prime Team), +2(if compot to defense if 5 or greater) for a +5, meaning it would always win no matter what in a single ship combat roll, even if it did not get a bonus for COMPOT.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 01:57 pm: Edit
Was there a final ruling on the free Hydran OCS Pegasus builds? There was some question on accounting for the free build limits and reconciling purposely built units.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 02:14 pm: Edit
You can build 4 of each variant for free ever, write it down on your Economic Sheet to keep track of it.
Any Pegasus builds subbing for a LN/HR is outside those limits. You want #5 & #6, you need to get it by paying for it.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 04:56 pm: Edit
Scott:
Thanks.
Nick/Jeff:
Please confirm the above and where -- thanks.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:04 am: Edit
Nick, never saw any feedback on my appeal request for the ability of the Fed "unreleased" fleets being able to setup/upgrade bases in Limited war.
By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 09:57 pm: Edit
Wasn't there a CL ruling related to that (in reference to the Dimitri Wall tactic, I think).
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 04:16 pm: Edit
Nick
I have two questions. The first is fairly simple. The Federation Orders of Battle says "CVLs cannot be built except to replace lost CVLs." Does this mean that I can convert the COV to a CVL (making a total of four) since it is not a build, rather a conversion?
Now the big one. I would like confirmation on something so I know I am reading the rules correctly. I am trying to figure out what exactly the limitations are on the Federation if they are at Limited War supporting the Kzinti. (602.4) states that "However, the Federation is not "at War" with the Klingons." (442.63) states that "Free fighter factors are received only when the race is at war (431.74). Under Fleet Release Status, (600.32) states that "The ships, but not the bases, of an inactive fleet can be converted at the starbases in that fleet's area if the race is on Wartime status." (431.2) says a race can produce PDUs, 1 MB, 1 FRD and 2 Convoys per turn "if at War." (431.22) simply states without any reference to economic/political status "One set (509.4) of tug pods can be produced each turn for replacements and authorized additions only."
I read the actions of the Federation as:
They do not receive any free fighter factors.
They receive only one Prime Team per turn (and cannot buy another).
They can upgrade ships in the 4th and the other nonactive fleets (the latter limited to one conversion per turn at their SB).
They cannot produce MBs and (since the 4th fleet didn't start with one), cannot take one of the stored ones and set it up around Kzintai (since the Home and 3rd can maneouver only in Fed territory).
They can produce pods, including the VAP+ starting on turn 8.
For completeness, they cannot overbuild, but that is explicitly stated in (431.4)
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 09:44 am: Edit
Dale, I think the answer is they ARE considered at war, but not at war with the Klingons(/Coalition) -
So they receive everything they normally would do so if they was at war - but CAN'T attack the Klingons (outside Kzinti space) and have additional limitations (other fleets stay in Fed space etc).
David - The Dimitri Wall was multiple MB's in a single hex, while the Feds wasn't at war with the Romulans - Tim was asking to see if the answer to the Feds/Released Fleets/MB's thing was answered!
By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 12:36 am: Edit
Here's an odd situation.
A knock-down, drag out brawl at an inadequately screened starbase/FRD park ends with all defending ships and bases dead, but the defender captures a frigate in the last round! Obviously there will be one last round of battle, either regular or pursuit, and with the twelve plus points left over from the SB going down the attacker would have no difficulty recapturing the frigate. However, can the defender use option 1 to gain a +1 die roll modifier when there are no other ships in the battle force, thereby (per rules for option 1) destroying the frigate rather than allowing it to be recaptured?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 03:16 pm: Edit
I have been away from this topic for a while, I will try to get some answers up over the next couple of days, I should have some time to work on it around thanksgiving if not before.
Nick
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 07:44 pm: Edit
(318.13) The limit (309.2) on the total number of bombardment factors is changed (for all races) to three platforms (i.e., three DB ships) rather than a set number of factors.
I realize that the 50% DB increase applies only in Y180 but…
…can I use 3 bombardment platforms immediately (Y168) or do I also have to wait until Turn 24?
By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 08:09 pm: Edit
John, in Y168 you always could use 3 platforms of 4 DB points each, are you asking if you can use three platforms with more the 4 DB factors? (I believe the answer to that is yes, but I´ll let nick confirm it)
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 10:15 pm: Edit
Question for John Colacito: did CL27 make you happy?
By John Conniff (Johnconn) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 05:58 am: Edit
This question was asked before by Rob Padilla back in '02, but never answered.
Can a race build Tug Pods when they have lost their capitol and their Shipyard has not been completed?
Specifically, if the Kzinti have lost their capitol (or the Hydrans), can they build Tug Pods at a SB while their Shipyard is being built?
Thanks!
-John
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 06:12 am: Edit
John I asked the same question as Robert -
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, November 03, 2002 - 09:21 pm: Edit
James Southcott RE pod construction: You need a shipyard to build anything on the construction schedule, with the exception of frigates (431.5) and some replacement attrition units.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 03:58 pm: Edit
Hi Nick I have a question about neutral zones.
A retreating fleet can choose to enter a NZ above all other priorities. Once races are allied or at war then NZ hexes are just like normal space so the fleet can no longer use the retreat priority to avoid retreating according to priority 2,3 or 4.
In our game it is turn 9 and the Fes have not been attacked. I know from your earlier ruling that the hexes between Klinks and feds are still NZ hexes, but the alliance are allowed to adopt the NZ hexes between the Kzinti and Fed territories. The Kzinti and feds can move through them freely rather than becoming interred, are they just empty hexes that the Klingons are not allowed to enter? or are they still NZ hexes. Specifically, does this mean that those hexes are no longer eligible for a Kzinti fleet to use this 'retreat priority 1'?
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 01:04 am: Edit
…are you asking if you can use three platforms with more the 4 DB factors?
Yes David. Maybe I should've just asked if you can use an LAD + 2xDF/CLD/BT etc for 14 DB factors pre-Y180.
SVC, ordered CL 27 today…will let you know about the happiness.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 11:01 pm: Edit
Getting caught up:
=======================================
James Southcott: Another question on fighting retreats - planet defended by a fleet. Before the last PDU is gone the defending fleet does a fighting retreat. Which battle is fought first? Round with the last PDU at the planet or the fighting retreat between the fleet originally defending the planet and wherever it went?
ANSWER: Good question. I suppose it makes sense to me to finish the planet battle first, since it would logically happen before the retreating fleet meets up with the enemy the next hex over due to travel time and such...
=======================================
Don Sample: This then, by deployment zone, means basically anything in the count's territory, or anything within range of a reserve fleet?
ANSWER: The deployment zone as described in the race's order of battle, i.e. where you can initially deploy the fleet at the start of the game.
=======================================
Chris E. Fant: Ok, can I get an example of when a planet
1. Becomes part of the supply grid
and
2. Becomes part of the economics. (produces captured income)
ANSWER:
1. Rule (413.2) says that the planet is part of your supply grid on the next player turn. So, if the coalition captures a kzinti planet on turn 2 coalition half, it counts as part of the klingon supply grid at the start of the alliance half of that same turn. If the Hydrans capture a Lyran planet on turn 4 alliance half, then it counts as part of the Hydran supply grid at the start of turn 5 coalition half.
2. Rule (508.22) says you get income on the second continuous turn of possession. So if the Klingons capture a Kzinti planet on turn 2 coalition half, then on turn 2 alliance half it is part of their supply grid, on turn 3 coalition half is one turn of possession, on turn 4 coalition half is two turns of continuous possession and they would get the devestated income on that turn.
Chris E. Fant: Can a ship or group of ships retreat offmap during combat and then use retrograde or CEDS or anything else for that matter to then move back on the map in a later phase?
Situation: crippled Kzinti escorts retreat from the capital to the Barony (offmap) during an assault, can they later used CEDS retro to go to the Marquis (on map)?
ANSWER: No, for two reasons. Rule (207.21) says you cannot leave the off map on the same turn you entered it. Rule (207.24) says you cannot leave the off map by retrograde.
Chris E. Fant: Is there a maximum on the +/- points that can be accrued?
ANSWER: I also thought there was a max if + or - 2, but now I can find no such rule, so there seems to be no limit. Rule (318.74) lists things as + or -, but yes, you need to remember that if you are attacker or defender this is the opposite. The rule was written from one point of view, but as there is only one die roll (not one roll per player), you have to reverse the modifiers to make them apply properly to the other side.
================================
Chuck Strong: Was there a final ruling on the free Hydran OCS Pegasus builds? There was some question on accounting for the free build limits and reconciling purposely built units.
Scott Tenhoff: You can build 4 of each variant for free ever, write it down on your Economic Sheet to keep track of it.
Any Pegasus builds subbing for a LN/HR is outside those limits. You want #5 & #6, you need to get it by paying for it.
ANSWER: Scott, is that a ruling from somewhere?Rule (709.1B) says no more than 4 of each type in service at any one time. So from what I see the off map yard builds one each spring turn Y172+ for free, you can build more in excess of that rate (i.e. more on the spring turn or build some on the fall turn) by paying normally, and there is an overall limit of four of each type in service at any given time.
===========================================
Tim Losberg: Let me make sure I sent it to Jeff.
===========================================
Dale L. Fields: I have two questions. The first is fairly simple. The Federation Orders of Battle says "CVLs cannot be built except to replace lost CVLs." Does this mean that I can convert the COV to a CVL (making a total of four) since it is not a build, rather a conversion?
ANSWER: I don't think you can do conversions either unless you are replaceing a lost CVL. Otherwise what prevents you from just converting every CA into a CVL?
Dale L. Fields:I am trying to figure out what exactly the limitations are on the Federation if they are at Limited War supporting the Kzinti.
Paul Howard: Dale, I think the answer is they ARE considered at war, but not at war with the Klingons(/Coalition) -
So they receive everything they normally would do so if they was at war - but CAN'T attack the Klingons (outside Kzinti space) and have additional limitations (other fleets stay in Fed space etc).
ANSWER: Paul is right, limited war you can do most of that stuff since you are now in control of the economy (even if only a percentage of it). They are not at war with the Klingons (i.e. fed ships cannot enter klingon territory), but they do get free fighters and such.
========================================
Frank DeMaris:Here's an odd situation.
A knock-down, drag out brawl at an inadequately screened starbase/FRD park ends with all defending ships and bases dead, but the defender captures a frigate in the last round! Obviously there will be one last round of battle, either regular or pursuit, and with the twelve plus points left over from the SB going down the attacker would have no difficulty recapturing the frigate. However, can the defender use option 1 to gain a +1 die roll modifier when there are no other ships in the battle force, thereby (per rules for option 1) destroying the frigate rather than allowing it to be recaptured?
ANSWER: If all defenders are dead there is not another round, combat is over, even if there are plus points. Why would there be another round if there is only one side? Am I missing something from your example?
=========================================
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.
============================================
John Conniff: Can a race build Tug Pods when they have lost their capitol and their Shipyard has not been completed?
ANSWER: I don't think so. Everything in general requires a shipyard. There is a special rule for attrition units, and FFs being built at starbases, but there is no such rule for tug pods.
=============================================
James Southcott: In our game it is turn 9 and the Fes have not been attacked. I know from your earlier ruling that the hexes between Klinks and feds are still NZ hexes, but the alliance are allowed to adopt the NZ hexes between the Kzinti and Fed territories. The Kzinti and feds can move through them freely rather than becoming interred, are they just empty hexes that the Klingons are not allowed to enter? or are they still NZ hexes. Specifically, does this mean that those hexes are no longer eligible for a Kzinti fleet to use this 'retreat priority 1'?
ANSWER: Rule (503.65) I think is the important rule here. I would say that if that applies, i.e. if the NZ hex in question is adjacent to a future belligerant or neutral race where you would move to and be interned, then you can use the NZ hex as the first retreat priority. If said NZ hex is no longer adjacent to someone who would intern you, then it is no longer "neutral" for purposes of retreat.
=============================================
I have two appeals pending that I haven't dealt with due to lack of time and e-mail stubbornness (thought I sent them but I guess not), the Fed fleet release thing and the Fed ECL light/heavy escort thing. Let me get on these next, I will try to get a coherant file together for each to send to Jeff. Sorry for the delay. Want another excuse? I haven't gotten my shipment with Gurps MPA, Klingons, CL#27, and other items I ordered yet, and I've been waiting and waiting and waiting. Mostly patiently. Seems like lots of other people have theirs though... GGGRRRRRRR!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 11:09 pm: Edit
Maybe tomorrow... Or the next day...
Hopefully before Xmas...
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 11:15 pm: Edit
thanks alot Nick!
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 03:35 am: Edit
Nick:
What is the the upper limit on Military Convoys in service?
If there is not a limit we may need SVC to limit them as they could be abused in base assaults. If there is no limit and the rule is NOT changed I will claim the term paper.
By Kerry Drake (Kedrake) on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:27 am: Edit
I broke out my old 1990 ish copy of F&E while waiting for my new order for F&E2K, AO and CO.
Questions:
A carrier group counter has an AF of say 21 and a fighter factors of say 8. Is the total COMPOT of the piece if it is attacking with its fighters 29 or is the fighter factor listed seperately if the fighters are used by themselves?
Same question with Bases.
Are the counters from my old version of F&E going to be of use in 2K (except for the BATS which are wrong for sure)?
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:28 am: Edit
Nick,
I thank what Frank DeMaris was saying was that all the defenders were destroyed but they miraculously captured a frigate as their last hurrah, so the defenders now consist of a single captured frigate. In some sense it would be better for the defenders to voluntarily destroy this instead of it being recaptured - would it be permissible to decline to attempt to capture a ship?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:30 am: Edit
Chuck Strong: Was there a final ruling on the free Hydran OCS Pegasus builds? There was some question on accounting for the free build limits and reconciling purposely built units.
Scott Tenhoff: You can build 4 of each variant for free ever, write it down on your Economic Sheet to keep track of it.
Any Pegasus builds subbing for a LN/HR is outside those limits. You want #5 & #6, you need to get it by paying for it.
ANSWER: Scott, is that a ruling from somewhere?Rule (709.1B) says no more than 4 of each type in service at any one time. So from what I see the off map yard builds one each spring turn Y172+ for free, you can build more in excess of that rate (i.e. more on the spring turn or build some on the fall turn) by paying normally, and there is an overall limit of four of each type in service at any given time.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This was discussed in the AAR for AO. SVC said at that time the limit would be 4 of each type given for free. Others could be built without the 4 per limit. However, I no longer see the AO AAR section, so can't provide a link.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 05:17 pm: Edit
Nick - thanks for clearing up those questions.
Got some more info on the Fed released fleets appeal: Under limited war 602.45 says that only the reserve marker for the 4th fleet is available for use by a force able to enter Kzinti territory and that the other reserve markers only become available when their respective fleets are released.
If the 3rd fleet were released then 507.42 would allow this one to be used as well (designate new production under the 3rd fleet reserve on the Kzinti border, it then goes to a target in Kzinti territory. The reserev marker does not leave Fed space). That which would conflict with 602.45. It does seem to me that the best interpretation is that the 3rd and home fleets are not released but just given the ability to move around Fed territory. Then again you'd expect me to say that
By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 09:31 am: Edit
Nick: Scott is correct that the last round (and the battle) was completed when suddenly we found that the defenders had captured a frigate, so now they do have one more ship left.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 12:21 pm: Edit
Ok, dealing with ships in partial grids.
IF ships are in a partial grid and on a base they are still in general supply.
What happens (if anything) if they move off the base in the partial grid? Are they unsupplied now? Can they only move three? Can they move normally but fight unsupplied? Are there any adverse affects to being in a partial supply grid if you start the turn on a base?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 12:26 pm: Edit
OK, a question on retreat and carrier groups:
Rule 308.122 states that Carriers can exchange escorts of like size, or if using Carrier War, crippled escorts can be left behind and this must be done if it is the only way to meet the Pursuit requirements.
Rule 515.15 states in the last sentence: "Escorts can be removed from carrier groups when the force is retreating." This sentence has no wording that this only applies to crippled ships, and seems to state that ALL escorts could be removed from ALL carrier groups, thereby allowing those escorts and carriers to (in theory) be re-formed again in another battle hex, should that force retreat into another one.
So, my question is which is correct? Rule 308.122 says I can only shed escorts if it is the ONLY way to meet the Pursuit requirements, but 515.15 states that I can shed ANY or ALL escorts when the force is retreating. Thanks!
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 12:29 pm: Edit
Can I use G units placed on a planet or a base to absorb the damage from a SAF attack? For example, if I have a Starbase with two G's on it, and a SAF scores two SIDS for damage, can I give up the G's instead like I could if it was a marine attack?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 01:51 pm: Edit
Nick, question on provinces:
Situation: Klingon turn, 2 hydrans are sitting in 2 different Klingon provinces.
During the Klingon turn, both of these Hydran ships are ejected from Klingon space, but the klingons only send ships into one of the provinces.
Is the second province still disrupted on the following Klingon player turn?
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 12:26 am: Edit
Speaking of province disruption, a Fed commercial convoy is in Gorn space. A Rom ship moves to disrupt the province. Does the CC count as a ship for purposes of keeping the province disrupted, or is it currently controlled by the Roms?
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 12:30 am: Edit
Nick
Again, thanks for the help on my previous questions. I have two more at present.
1) Are any other steps in the combat phase conducted if SSC is used? I sent three ships against his two, gaining a +2 modifier (but still under 15 AF). I destroyed both his ships. My friend is annoyed that he wasn't able to either a) withdraw one of his ships before combat or b) keep one of his ships out of the battle force. SSC is pretty explicit about all ships contributing so I don't see his b), but I am curious about his a). If I had sent 1 more AF, normal combat means he would have been able to save one of his ships.
2) Does the specific conversion costs for the first DDS(s) (525.323) apply to fighters? I would like to convert two Hydran destroyers to 2xDDS under these rules. If I convert 2xLN, the number of fighters stays the same, so no issue. If I convert 2xKN, do I have to pay 5+4 EP? I claim no, as (525.323) is quite explicit that "The cost is 3EPs, or 5EPs if both are done on the same turn by the same starbase (this includes the cost of repair and conversion). This special conversion is limited to two ships total; the Hydran player may build more DDS ships by conversion of substitution within the normal rules." As the Hydran player, I would be the first to admit that this is a pretty cheap and rules-lawyery way to get 4 free fighters (besides the extra free EW). But then again, aren't all Hydrans supposed to be cheap and sneaky?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 08:14 pm: Edit
Hey Nick, I am sure you are busy, but do you think you might get to some of these before Monday?
Thanks
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 12:07 am: Edit
More Answers.
====================================
Chuck Strong: What is the the upper limit on Military Convoys in service?
ANSWER: I see no limit currently on Military Convoys. If there should be one then SVC would need to rule on that, and he is on vacation. Why does it need to be changed? Is your tac-note sufficiently abusive?
=====================================
Kerry Drake: A carrier group counter has an AF of say 21 and a fighter factors of say 8. Is the total COMPOT of the piece if it is attacking with its fighters 29 or is the fighter factor listed seperately if the fighters are used by themselves? Same question with Bases.
ANSWER: You add both the attack factor and the fighter factor to your COMPOT when the entire group is in your battle force. The attack factor is simply the sum of the attack factors of the carrier and its escorts, it does not include the fighter factors which are always listed separately(which is usually 6 for most cruiser sized carriers). That way if the fighter react independently (or are sent in as independent units), you know what factor to use, and if the group is in combat without fighters you know what factors to use, and if bother are present, you simply add the factors together. Same for bases.
The counters from a 1990ish version of the game should largely still be compatible, as far as I know.
========================================
Frank DeMaris: on one side consisting only of a captured ship.
ANSWER: Ah, now I understand. In that case, I don't think you can use option one, since rule (305.21) is pretty clear that when used for this the captured ship is not part of the battle force that gains the modifier. If you have no battleforce to gain the modifier, then it seems to me that this cannot work. The minimum force rules (if you cannot get out of combat) would seem to force you to use option 5.
========================================
Chuck Strong/Tony Barnes: On the limits on pegasus class ships.
ANSWER: Perhaps I should check with SVC after he gets back from vacation, since I don't remember anything from the AAR topic...
=========================================
Chris Fant: IF ships are in a partial grid and on a base they are still in general supply.
What happens (if anything) if they move off the base in the partial grid? Are they unsupplied now? Can they only move three? Can they move normally but fight unsupplied? Are there any adverse affects to being in a partial supply grid if you start the turn on a base?
ANSWER: If they move off the base/planet of the partial grid (and you did not pay for supply), then it is treated like ANY OTHER situation where you move beyond supply range during the turn. Since you started the turn in supply, you get full movement and are not penalized for general combat, but (as per CL#27) if you have no valid supply path while actually in combat you do not get to do drone bombardment, cannot pay to get extra G factors, and you get no salvage. If you do not have a valid supply path at the instant of combat or at the start of retrograde phase, then you cannot retrograde. In this situation you may very will find yourself out of supply and fighting at full penalties on the next turn unless you pay for supply from a partial grid on that turn.
====================================
Robert Padilla: So, my question is which is correct? Rule 308.122 says I can only shed escorts if it is the ONLY way to meet the Pursuit requirements, but 515.15 states that I can shed ANY or ALL escorts when the force is retreating.
ANSWER: Both rules are in force. Rule (308.122) does not say it is the only rule, in fact it references (515.15). So you can shed escorts when retreating, BUT if you do so then they cannot be re-grouped later on in further retreat hexes of that battle, since grouping is only done at the start of a given battle.
============================================
Robert Padilla: Can I use G units placed on a planet or a base to absorb the damage from a SAF attack? For example, if I have a Starbase with two G's on it, and a SAF scores two SIDS for damage, can I give up the G's instead like I could if it was a marine attack?
ANSWER: I do not think so. The sacrifice rule pertains to normal marine attacks, not SAF attacks. Rule (521.38) says that a defending G can be given up to resolve a "casualty" from (521.34), and rule (521.834) says that starbase Gs can be given up to resolve a "casualty" from (521.34), nothing allows this to happen vs a SAF attack. Remember, a lot of the SAF attack is explosive suicide freighters (not just troops), and if that reaches your starbase, which is what the chart in (520.42) shows, then there is not much your marines can do about it.
=========================================
Chris Fant: Situation: Klingon turn, 2 hydrans are sitting in 2 different Klingon provinces.
During the Klingon turn, both of these Hydran ships are ejected from Klingon space, but the klingons only send ships into one of the provinces.
Is the second province still disrupted on the following Klingon player turn?
ANSWER: It looks to me like rule (430.24) applies, but it is hard to tell without more detail. How were the Hydrans ejected? Did they leave of their own accord, or did Klingons enter the province (and then leave again)?
===========================================
Bill Schoeller: Speaking of province disruption, a Fed commercial convoy is in Gorn space. A Rom ship moves to disrupt the province. Does the CC count as a ship for purposes of keeping the province disrupted, or is it currently controlled by the Roms?
ANSWER: (756.0) states that convoys are non-ship units, and as such would not likely affect province ownership. Note that (430.21) says "ship or base", while (430.23) states that convoys and FRDs do not count. This would apply in general for province control functions.
============================================
Dale Fields:
1) Are any other steps in the combat phase conducted if SSC is used? I sent three ships against his two, gaining a +2 modifier (but still under 15 AF). I destroyed both his ships. My friend is annoyed that he wasn't able to either a) withdraw one of his ships before combat or b) keep one of his ships out of the battle force. SSC is pretty explicit about all ships contributing so I don't see his b), but I am curious about his a). If I had sent 1 more AF, normal combat means he would have been able to save one of his ships.
ANSWER: Note that in the sequence of play in Advanced Ops the determination to use single combat is in step 5-3H, which is after withdrawal before combat, so that step should be resolved first. I believe you are supposed to use all units in the hex in this determination though.
2) Does the specific conversion costs for the first DDS(s) (525.323) apply to fighters? I would like to convert two Hydran destroyers to 2xDDS under these rules. If I convert 2xLN, the number of fighters stays the same, so no issue. If I convert 2xKN, do I have to pay 5+4 EP? I claim no, as (525.323) is quite explicit that "The cost is 3EPs, or 5EPs if both are done on the same turn by the same starbase (this includes the cost of repair and conversion). This special conversion is limited to two ships total; the Hydran player may build more DDS ships by conversion of substitution within the normal rules." As the Hydran player, I would be the first to admit that this is a pretty cheap and rules-lawyery way to get 4 free fighters (besides the extra free EW). But then again, aren't all Hydrans supposed to be cheap and sneaky?
ANSWER: As far as I know it is just the 3 or 5 EPs total.
=========================================
Chris Fant, missed your deadline by a couple of minutes.
==========================================
Appeals have been sent to Jeff, just to let you know where that is.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 12:52 pm: Edit
Heh, thanks Nick.
A continued question on (430.24) for clarification really.
This rule states that if the enemy leaves the province on HIS player turn (emphasis mine) then as long as there is an adjacent hex you get 1 EP for it next turn.
Now, what happens if he leaves the province on YOUR player turn? Is it still the same situation?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 03:13 am: Edit
Chris, ah, why are you asking a question when the Hydran has a full turn (his) to do something about that situation, in other words, until he finishes his next turn, it don't matter....
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 03:35 am: Edit
Stewart,
Because it does not matter what he does for the sake of the question. Because I thought of something I could not answer with the rules. And because I have the ability to. Why do you ask questions?
In any case, no ships entered Klingon space, so the question still stands.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:08 pm: Edit
Nick,
A couple questions that came up in a very interesting gaming session Sunday. One is very complex, bear with me
1. The Gorns are attacking a starbase. They use 308.87 to launch ground attacks. Can "G" factors on the base be used to resolve casualties, or must the starbase take a SIDS?
2. A crippled starbase has two SIDS repaired by a tug, making it uncrippled. Rule 420.62 clearly prevents the starbase from conducting repairs. But can it build a frigate or convert ships? Can it be used for SIDS repair later in the turn?
3. OK--the biggie:
A small fleet of Federation ships begins its phase of the turn on a starbase in a partial grid. They are therefore in supply. They engage in a battle two hexes away from the starbase, and announce retreat.
for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that there are two hexes available for retreat (and the other ones all duplicate the below conditions).
One option places the fleet one hex away from the starbase. The other places the fleet three hexes away from the starbase, and out of supply. For strategic reasons, the Federation wants to go to the latter.
The Federation player argues that he will be out of supply no matter where he goes (since the partial grid did not pay to supply ships a hex away), and under 302.733A, supply is no longer a relevant concern.
The Coalition player argues that he has to retreat towards the starbase because there is a valid supply path there, even if the Federation chooses not to pay for it.
Both sides seem to have factually correct arguements. Please assist
thanks.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 12:09 pm: Edit
Nick, I apologize. Question 2 should have read:
2. A crippled starbase has two SIDS repaired by a tug, making it uncrippled. Rule 420.62 clearly prevents the starbase from conducting repairs. But can it build a frigate or convert ships? Can it be used for CEDS repair later in the turn?
Note the use of "CEDS" in the last sentence, not "SIDS"
Thanks.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:05 am: Edit
Chris, I think I see where you're coming from... the question is - If the Hydran reacts out of a captured province, does 430.24 take effect (as reaction is a voluntary movement)?
Otherwise, the Hydran can only be 'moved' by his destruction or retreat (which reoccupies the province and grants you the full 2 EP on your next Econ Phase if he does nothing during his intervening turn).
So my question is, is that your question Chris?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 02:32 am: Edit
Stewart,
Indeed. If the Hydran leaves the province on my turn but I do not re-occupy the province, then does NOT re-enter the province on his turn, is it still disrupted?
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 06:06 pm: Edit
Can tugs carry and deploy an ally's mobile base? You can upgrade an ally's base with (433.41) so I was wondering about planting the base in the first place.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 07:53 pm: Edit
If a tug is adopted by an ally as an expeditionary fleet can it become a supply point for it's adopted race?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:31 pm: Edit
Chris, you'll have to wait for Nick on that, since technically (430.24) deals with 'voluntary' withdrawal during the Hydran turn, not 'voluntary movement' (reaction) during the Klingon turn.
Off hand, I'd say no it's not disrupted as the Hydran would have the opportunity to re-occupy that province during his turn (as you have said you did not move any ships into that province).
Remember that when he withdraws on his turn, you do not have an opportunity to 're-claim' the province (if you can react to his movement into the province, you re-occupy it), if he reacts during your turn, there is an option to 're-claim' the province afterward.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 11:53 pm: Edit
I agree with you there. The rule is not clear to its intent. Hopefully Nick will get around to it before my next econ phase.
Though, the reason I feel it should not be disrupted is that it has not had an enemy presence in at least 6 months, where in the mentioned rule that enemy presence has essentially only just left.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 09:39 am: Edit
Rule (441.31) [Upgrading Planetary Defence Bases]seems to contradict itself. The second sentence says:
These fighter bases can be added to existing PGBs by the same methods as PDUs are deployed (508.3); an LTT can carry one such upgrade while a tug could carry two.
while two sentences later it states:
If deployed outside of the shipyard hex, the fighter base must be moved by a tug, comprising its entire cargo.
What gives?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 10:08 pm: Edit
Chris Fant: On (430.24). This rule states that if the enemy leaves the province on HIS player turn (emphasis mine) then as long as there is an adjacent hex you get 1 EP for it next turn.
Now, what happens if he leaves the province on YOUR player turn? Is it still the same situation?
ANSWER: Normally this is handled by (430.23), i.e. you chased him out and left something in the province. Now, if you chased him out, but also retreated out of the province yourself, then I suppose I would handle it under (430.24), i.e. it still counts as "disrupted". You must re-occupy it to get full income again, which means leaving a ship there at the end of a phase.
==============================================
Paul Bonfanti:
1. The Gorns are attacking a starbase. They use 308.87 to launch ground attacks. Can "G" factors on the base be used to resolve casualties, or must the starbase take a SIDS?
ANSWER: I suppose I could see the argument either way, but rule (308.87) does say that it is used (on a given turn) in place of the regular marine attack rules, and so the defensive Gs cannot be given up without using those rules. In other words, if you are playing with just vanilla rules, there would be no such defense. When you add the marine rules, there is nothing in there that modifies (308.87). This way makes the Gorn bonus special even after adding the full marine rules.
2. A crippled starbase has two SIDS repaired by a tug, making it uncrippled. Rule 420.62 clearly prevents the starbase from conducting repairs. But can it build a frigate or convert ships? Can it be used for CEDS repair later in the turn?
ANSWER: Rule (433.11), only uncrippled starbases can do conversions. Curiously, I see nothing regarding construction of FFs/DWs or PFs, so presumably this is legal, strange that, maybe I am just missing it... The rule is clear that it cannot do repairs, even on the turn it was repaired, and presumably this includes later in the turn.
3. A small fleet of Federation ships begins its phase of the turn on a starbase in a partial grid. They are therefore in supply. They engage in a battle two hexes away from the starbase, and announce retreat.
for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that there are two hexes available for retreat (and the other ones all duplicate the below conditions).
One option places the fleet one hex away from the starbase. The other places the fleet three hexes away from the starbase, and out of supply. For strategic reasons, the Federation wants to go to the latter.
The Federation player argues that he will be out of supply no matter where he goes (since the partial grid did not pay to supply ships a hex away), and under 302.733A, supply is no longer a relevant concern.
The Coalition player argues that he has to retreat towards the starbase because there is a valid supply path there, even if the Federation chooses not to pay for it.
ANSWER: I would say that if he did not pay for it, then the supply path is not there, and shouldn't count for retreat.
=========================================
Sean Dzafovic: Can tugs carry and deploy an ally's mobile base? You can upgrade an ally's base with (433.41) so I was wondering about planting the base in the first place.
ANSWER: See (510.213), MBs can be moved and placed only by tugs of the same race.
=============================================
James Southcott: If a tug is adopted by an ally as an expeditionary fleet can it become a supply point for it's adopted race?
ANSWER: Huh? Adopted (410.5) and expeditionary (411.7) are two different modes of supplying a ship. I am confused by your question, there is no such thing as "adopting something as an expeditionary fleet". If a tug is expeditionary, then it is being supplied by its own race, but through an allies grid. If used as a supply point, it would count for its own race. If it is an adopted ship, it is still owned by the original race even though the supplies are coming from an ally. If used as a supply source I think it would still be for the owning race. A much more interesting question is how (in either case) you pay EPs for one ship's supplies (the tug), but end up getting supplies for any number of ships since the tug is now a supply source. Something fishy here, although the expeditionary rules specifically allow tug mission D, and the homeless rules do not specify... This may need another look, unless I am missing something.
=========================================
Sean Dzafovic: Rule (441.31) [Upgrading Planetary Defence Bases]seems to contradict itself. The second sentence says:
These fighter bases can be added to existing PGBs by the same methods as PDUs are deployed (508.3); an LTT can carry one such upgrade while a tug could carry two.
while two sentences later it states:
If deployed outside of the shipyard hex, the fighter base must be moved by a tug, comprising its entire cargo.
ANSWER: I would assume that the second phrase "comprising its entire cargo" is actually a reference to the fact that the tug cannot do more than one mission at a time. So even if your tug only carries one fighter base, it cannot carry something else (like EPs) in the "unused" space. So an LTT can carry one fighter base, a tug one or two, and when you do this the tug's mission is "carry fighter base(s)", and it cannot do something else at the same time.
===========================================
Replies from Jeff:
On the Fed ECL/DE escort order question, The Federation ECL is classed as a Heavy Escort according to the Advanced Ops SIT. It has factors of 4-6. The Fed DE has factors of 5-6 and is classed as a Light Escort. Rule (308.114) and (515.31) says that you use the defense factor to determine the "smallest" escort for CEDS damage purposes. Does this mean that you can "hide" the DE behind the ECL since they have the same defense factor? Or is it assumed that the Heavy escorts in "further in" from the Light Escort (i.e. you must get attack the DE with CEDS before the ECL)? :
Jeff's ANSWER: I don't see anything that gives "light/heavy" as a tie breaker. Just to use the defense factor at the owner's option. So, there is nothing wrong with using the ECL to protect the DE. But, since Fighter Ops is coming, it could be changed. This is, after all, a ruling that favors the Alliance, which are the only ones with strength 6 light and heavy escorts, In vanilla F&E, it doesn't make a lot of difference for the Fed CVA. But the Hydran and Kzinti DWEs and oversized escort groups do make a difference in Carrier Ops. Be prepared for Alliance whining if the change is proposed/implemented.
On the Fed limited war fleet release status, Is this the same as released, but with a movement restriction (cannot leave Fed space), or is it the same as unreleased, but with a special movement exception (can move anywhere in Fed space)? :
Jeff's ANSWER: As I recall, the fleets aren't released, Steve says it would antagonize the Klingons. They can be redeployed, and MBs from 4th Fleet or new construction can be deployed, but the bases can't be upgraded. The Fed Senate is still hoping the problem will go away if they don't bug the Klingons too much.
=====================================
Nick
By John Conniff (Johnconn) on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 10:29 pm: Edit
I have several questions which have popped up:
1. Are Police Ships ships or only units?
2. Can a Police Ship be a flagship? If so, what's it's command rating?
3. The text of 302.36 says: "...must include at least half of the *ships* unless the Cmd Rating of the flagship can't control that many *units*..." - Does this mean that Aux's only count in filling the battle force to the Cmd Rating of a flagship but not in determining the min. size? That is, if I have 4 ships & 5 Aux's is my min. size 4 or 2?
4. Can a captured ship be used as a 'normal' crippled ship, after the turn it was captured has passed? I know Option 5 allows it in the battle it was captured, but can it be used in subsequent battles.
5. After a Slow Unit retreat the slow units (& escorts) *must* retrograde 3 hexes or their destroyed. What if they're out of supply and can't retrograde? Do they get an exception retrograde or are they simply dead?
6. Clarification: To be in supply for Retrograding requires that the unit is in supply "at the time of retrograde" and/or in supply *at the time of combat* (not simply considered in supply for combat). Correct?
Thanks a ton!
-John
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 07:36 am: Edit
Yeah - sorry Nick - was a bit lazy with the terminology there. Meant expeditionary, so you've already answered it (though I would be interested in what the situation would be for a homeless tug cos I can see that coming about later)
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 05:38 pm: Edit
Another apparent contradiction:
(441.421) A tug can carry four modules of any type, an LTT can carry two. They are then set up as a mobile base (i.e. the tug must remain in that hex until the start of the next Operational Movement Phase). If deployed in the hex where they are built, no tug is required.
(441.422) Modules start functioning immediately upon delivery. If the tug/LTT is destroyed during delivery, the modules are presumed to be deployed.
Do the modules begin functioning immediately or not? Its not like they can be set up on their own like an MB.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 07:30 pm: Edit
Nick - I have a few partial supply grid question.
Most sections where you can spend econ to supply ships by smuggling mention that you can use smuggling to spend additional econ for various purposes(ex. 413.42). However, 413.41 says an economic point produced in a partial grid can supply up to 5 units ... Does this mean that you can not smuggle econ to pay for this function?
What about salvage that is in the grid? Can that be used to supply ships?
If a ship starts at a SB it is in supply, but if it moves to attack, it will be unable to retrograde because it will not be in supply at the moment of combat or in the retrograde phase. If it pays to put ships into supply by spending econ to pay for up to 5 ships would this only be in supply for the movement portion of the turn, or would it be in supply for the entire turn (if it could draw supply to the SB)?
If it does not pay to supply the ships in the econ phase, can the phasing player spend econ to put the ships in supply for the retrograde phase? 413.41 does not specify when the phasing (or non-phasing player) can choose to spend this income.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 07:18 pm: Edit
Thanks for getting the ruling on the Feds, sorry to keep going back to it but....
Jeff's ANSWER: As I recall, the fleets aren't released, Steve says it would antagonize the Klingons. They can be redeployed, and MBs from 4th Fleet or new construction can be deployed, but the bases can't be upgraded. The Fed Senate is still hoping the problem will go away if they don't bug the Klingons too much.
The 4th fleet does not have any MB in the initial OOB. The query was about whether the MB in the Home fleet could be deployed. Not sure whether Jeff meant that the Home fleet MB's could be set-up (as an exception to the general rule that inactive fleets can't set-up their MB's) or just the newly constructed bases, at the one per hex allowed in the rules.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 09:45 pm: Edit
Seems pretty clear with the "from 4th Fleet or new construction can be deployed"
By John Conniff (Johnconn) on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 12:36 am: Edit
Okay, so I have a very "specific to the situation question"...But it should add clarity to some of the other questions asked.
T5A - move Kzinti fleet from offmap and pick up one at 1701 on way to attack 1504. Add the SAVs/LAVs from 1704.
As the Kzintis left no ships at 1701, they cut themselves out of supply. Which, in turn, caused the Marquis Zone to not be a Partial Supply Grid because of when it occurred; during Alliance Movement.
This was interpretted as having put the Kzintis out of supply at the point of combat - no Retrogrades, no replacement fighters. Was this correct?
The Kzintis won the hex. Sitting on 1504 at beginning of T6C. The fleet is now in supply (410.4).
The Marquis Zone is still cut out of supply, but I believe, according to a prior posted & answered question, it is still not a Partial Supply grid. Right?
As the Kzintis have supply at 1504 what does it mean for the following?
Questions/Statements to verify:
1. The Kzintis fight at full strength.
2. The Kzintis do NOT get Replacement Fighters.
3. The Kzintis can Retrograde.
4. Does 1504 make a Partial Supply grid out of itself? And thus the rest of the Marquis?
4.a. If so, must 1504 be the 'central point' of the supply grid, or do the Kzintis designate that?
4.b. If not, do the Kzintis simply not get Salvage, or does it stay at 1504?
Thanks much!
-John
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 10:05 pm: Edit
I am planning to get to these Saturday night, sorry for the delays lately, but working retail during the holiday season leaves little free time.
Nick
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 12:24 am: Edit
A partial supply grid with stockpiled EP loses its last supply point. Are the stockpiled EP utterly destroyed or are half the EP smuggled out to the capitol?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 09:28 pm: Edit
Answers to questions:
=========================================
John Conniff:
1. Are Police Ships ships or only units?
ANSWER: They are treated as ships.
2. Can a Police Ship be a flagship? If so, what's it's command rating?
ANSWER: Looks like this wasn't in the book as the police ships are not on the SIT. You could check Star Fleet Battles for the command ratings, as I believe that is listed on the master ship chart. I would post them here but I am without my SFB material at the moment.
3. The text of 302.36 says: "...must include at least half of the *ships* unless the Cmd Rating of the flagship can't control that many *units*..." - Does this mean that Aux's only count in filling the battle force to the Cmd Rating of a flagship but not in determining the min. size? That is, if I have 4 ships & 5 Aux's is my min. size 4 or 2?
ANSWER: I believe they would count for the minimum force purposes since rule (513.121) says that aux carriers function in combat as any other ship would (even though they are non-ship units for other purposes). In general the other aux ships use the aux carrier rules.
4. Can a captured ship be used as a 'normal' crippled ship, after the turn it was captured has passed? I know Option 5 allows it in the battle it was captured, but can it be used in subsequent battles.
ANSWER: So far as I know, option 5 can be used in later battles (assuming you haven't used one of the other options in the meantime).
5. After a Slow Unit retreat the slow units (& escorts) *must* retrograde 3 hexes or their destroyed. What if they're out of supply and can't retrograde? Do they get an exception retrograde or are they simply dead?
ANSWER: I believe that it automatically happens regardless. It uses some of the retro rules (you need a valid retrograde path), but it is retreat.
6. Clarification: To be in supply for Retrograding requires that the unit is in supply "at the time of retrograde" and/or in supply *at the time of combat* (not simply considered in supply for combat). Correct?
ANSWER: In order to retrograde, you must have either a valid supply path at the instant of retrograde, or have had a valid supply path (not just been "in supply") during combat.
========================================
Sean Dzafovic:
(441.421) A tug can carry four modules of any type, an LTT can carry two. They are then set up as a mobile base (i.e. the tug must remain in that hex until the start of the next Operational Movement Phase). If deployed in the hex where they are built, no tug is required.
(441.422) Modules start functioning immediately upon delivery. If the tug/LTT is destroyed during delivery, the modules are presumed to be deployed.
Do the modules begin functioning immediately or not? Its not like they can be set up on their own like an MB.
ANSWER: There is no contradiction. The modules start function immediately. The tug remains in that hex until the start of the next operational movement phase. No problem that I see. The modules are not set up on their own, the existing base is there to finish the work, even if the tug is destroyed (even though the tug normally stays around to help).
==============================================
Bill Schoeller:
Most sections where you can spend econ to supply ships by smuggling mention that you can use smuggling to spend additional econ for various purposes(ex. 413.42). However, 413.41 says an economic point produced in a partial grid can supply up to 5 units ... Does this mean that you can not smuggle econ to pay for this function?
ANSWER: You can use smuggled EPs for supply. Rule (410.34) is general, it moves EPs into a partial grid, they can then be used for many things. Rule (413.4) says to see (410.34) for moving EPs into a partial grid for various uses.
What about salvage that is in the grid? Can that be used to supply ships?
ANSWER: Well, the salvage just becomes EPs right? So you could use those EPs for supply.
If a ship starts at a SB it is in supply, but if it moves to attack, it will be unable to retrograde because it will not be in supply at the moment of combat or in the retrograde phase. If it pays to put ships into supply by spending econ to pay for up to 5 ships would this only be in supply for the movement portion of the turn, or would it be in supply for the entire turn (if it could draw supply to the SB)?
ANSWER: Paying for supply under (413.41) counts for the rest of the turn, so you would have a supply path back to the starbase in your example.
If it does not pay to supply the ships in the econ phase, can the phasing player spend econ to put the ships in supply for the retrograde phase? 413.41 does not specify when the phasing (or non-phasing player) can choose to spend this income.
ANSWER: Rule (413.41) does not specify when you do this. For other supply purposes (homeless, expeditionary) you can pay only in the economic/production phase, so I would think this works the same way.
===========================================
James Southcott:
The 4th fleet does not have any MB in the initial OOB. The query was about whether the MB in the Home fleet could be deployed. Not sure whether Jeff meant that the Home fleet MB's could be set-up (as an exception to the general rule that inactive fleets can't set-up their MB's) or just the newly constructed bases, at the one per hex allowed in the rules.
ANSWER: I think he meant 3rd fleet (although that doesn't have one either). I suppose they can be setup (since the ships can move around), but they cannot be upgraded.
=======================================
John Conniff
Okay, so I have a very "specific to the situation question"...But it should add clarity to some of the other questions asked.
T5A - move Kzinti fleet from offmap and pick up one at 1701 on way to attack 1504. Add the SAVs/LAVs from 1704.
As the Kzintis left no ships at 1701, they cut themselves out of supply. Which, in turn, caused the Marquis Zone to not be a Partial Supply Grid because of when it occurred; during Alliance Movement.
This was interpretted as having put the Kzintis out of supply at the point of combat - no Retrogrades, no replacement fighters. Was this correct?
The Kzintis won the hex. Sitting on 1504 at beginning of T6C. The fleet is now in supply (410.4).
The Marquis Zone is still cut out of supply, but I believe, according to a prior posted & answered question, it is still not a Partial Supply grid. Right?
ANSWER: You've confused me. If the marquis is cut off from the main grid, then BY DEFINITION it is a partial grid. There is no such thing as cutting the marquis provinces off, and also not being a partial grid. If they are cut off, then they are a partial grid (assuming you still control them).
As the Kzintis have supply at 1504 what does it mean for the following?
1. The Kzintis fight at full strength.
ANSWER: Correct.
2. The Kzintis do NOT get Replacement Fighters.
ANSWER: You do get replacement fighters since if you are on the planet you are in supply. If you pay for supply under (413.41) (to be used at some distance from the partial grid, i.e. outside of hex 1504) then you only get up to 12 replacement fighters per EP spent.
3. The Kzintis can Retrograde.
ANSWER: Correct (assuming a valid retrograde path).
4. Does 1504 make a Partial Supply grid out of itself? And thus the rest of the Marquis?
ANSWER: A single planet could be a partial grid (possibly along with the disrupted province it is in). Don't know what you mean about the rest of the Marquis.
4.a. If so, must 1504 be the 'central point' of the supply grid, or do the Kzintis designate
that?
ANSWER: If 1504 is the only thing in the partial grid, then it would be the central point, what else could it be?
4.b. If not, do the Kzintis simply not get Salvage, or does it stay at 1504?
ANSWER: Any salvage from ships lost in 1504 would become EPs in that partial grid consisting only of the planet in 1504.
============================================
Todd E Jahnke:
A partial supply grid with stockpiled EP loses its last supply point. Are the stockpiled EP utterly destroyed or are half the EP smuggled out to the capitol?
ANSWER: See (413.46), destruction of the last supply point results in the loss of everythign there. You could "smuggle" out the EPs earlier (in the normal sequence of play) if you think the supply point will be lost, but once it is lost it is too late to save the EPs.
=============================================
By John Conniff (Johnconn) on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 06:50 pm: Edit
Thanks for your answers Nick! To clarify the specific question regarding the Marquis and also help understand when a Partial Grid is formed, here are further details:
During Alliance Op Moves, the Kzinti moved the fleet from 1701 that was keeping the Off Map and Marquis connected. Does the Marquis become a Partial Grid at this point?
Perhaps I didn't understand other answers above, but the way we played it was that the Marquis was "nothing" and so there wasn't even a Partial Supply grid to have the salvage go to.
The Kzintis attacked 1504 on T5A, which was under the Coalition thumb, and won the battle. We presumed that the Kzintis were out of supply for the combat and could not Retrograde. They also couldn't get Replacement Fighters.
On T6C, the Coalition attacked back. At this point, 1504 was a supply point for the Kzinti. So, from what I understand from your answers, at the end of the combat the Slow Units could Retrograde, after a retreat.
Would they get replacement fighters even though they retreated? They were in supply during combat and from your answers above, they would - if I'm understanding you correctly.
The *big* question is, "Is the Marquis Zone a Partial Supply Grid?" Would it then entail the entire Marquis and 1504 and the province 1504 is in? And if so, would the Kzinti also get Salvage?
Thanks again!
John
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 09:56 pm: Edit
John, were there Coalition ships adjacent to 1701 that would close the Barony/Marquis supply path?
The Marquis has 5 supply points (SB, 3 BATS, planet) and if there is not valid supply path from any of those points to the Barony, then it becomes a Partial Grid (this does require a Coalition ship in 1701, 1702 or 1601).
By John Conniff (Johnconn) on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 02:15 am: Edit
Stewart, yup, there are Klingon E4's in 1601 and 1702.
The big question, really, is at what point does it become a Partial Supply Grid? Immediately upon being severed? Or the first Economics phase the Kzinti have after it is severed?
-John
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 10:35 pm: Edit
JohnC, on the next Econ Phase after being severed(after all, it's not 'official' until then).
By John Conniff (Johnconn) on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 03:00 am: Edit
Stewart (SWF) - so what is it from the point it is severed until the next Econ Phase? And is the Kzinti's next Econ Phase, or simply the next one that happens?
Thanks - and Happy Holidays, all!
-John
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 08:25 am: Edit
Hi Nick
Can a PT built at the capital join a ship already in the raid pool.
Thanks and Merry Christmas
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 09:41 pm: Edit
JohnC, well, on the Kzinti Econ Phase, the Marquis is part of the main grid and the EPs generated go to the capital. After your move, it's noted that Marquis is now a partial grid, but this will only effect a retreat/retrograde if there is a choice between which grids it goes to. On the Klingon turn, the grid status for the Marquis remains noted as partial (and is needed only for Kzinti retreat/retrograde). When the Kzinti turn comes again, it is now 'officially' a Partial Grid (and stockpiling EPs)...
By Harry Theodore (Harryt) on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 12:29 pm: Edit
Nick,
(or anyone who knows) Where can I find information about "base stations". I can't seem to find where they are in the rules. I do have all the rule sets so I may just be blind. Thanks in advance.
Harry
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 12:51 pm: Edit
AO I do believe, in advanced economics section (this is from top of my old grey head so forgive me if I'm wrong).
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 12:57 pm: Edit
Base Stations are rule 444 and are in CO.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 01:56 pm: Edit
And CO (in case you didn't know) is Combined Operations. It's a re-release of Special Operations + Marine Assault (plus a couple of new rules - one being base stations).
http://www.starfleetstore.com/MERCHANT2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=S&Product_Code=3207
By Harry Theodore (Harryt) on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 02:36 pm: Edit
Sooo,
If I have F&E2000, AO, CW (Carrier War), SO & MA I do not necessarily(sp?) have what I need for base stations? (actually 2 copies+ of each). Is there anyplace on this board or in the Captain's Logs that would have this info, as post Christmas bills make any game purchases impossible at this time? Any help appreciated. Thanks.
Harry
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 02:46 pm: Edit
Base stats are 10/6 with 1EW and repair cap of 2. Can't remember if they have fighter bays.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 02:49 pm: Edit
It's in one oof the logs, recent ones I think.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 02:54 pm: Edit
Moved over to General Discussions to avoid clutter here.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 04:33 pm: Edit
"If I have F&E2000, AO, CW (Carrier War), SO & MA..."
You would need the CO rulebook and TU countersheet (available as spare parts) to be fully up to date. Many changes to the SO/MA rules were made in CO and there is no specific list of them anywhere.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 02:03 pm: Edit
I have been away for a bit, but will get to the questions tonight.
Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 07:21 pm: Edit
John Conniff:
ANSWER: If there are supply points (planets, bases) in the marquis that are cut off from the main grid, then they are BY DEFINITION, a partial grid (413.4). It is a partial grid as soon as it is cut off. There are certain points in the turn when some changes happen, (newly captured planets become part of a supply grid the player turn after they are captured), (EPs transfer between reconnected grids during the economic phase). There is nothing in the rules that says grids are considered severed or reconnected only at a specific point in the SOP, the creation of partial grids or reconnection of such to the main grid can happen at various points (combat, movement). As soon as any of the marquis planets/bases cannot trace supply to the main grid, they are by definition a partial grid.
QUESTION: During Alliance Op Moves, the Kzinti moved the fleet from 1701 that was keeping the Off Map and Marquis connected. Does the Marquis become a Partial Grid at this point?
ANSWER: Yes.
You get replacement fighters at specific points in the SOP, Retrograde phase, and Production Phase. If you have a valid supply path at either of these times, then you get fighter replacements at that time (501.5).
If you had a valid supply path at the start of the turn or at the instant of combat, then you do not fight at a penalty.
If you had a valid supply path at the instat of combat or at the instant of retrograde, then you get to retrograde.
===================================
James Southcott: Can a PT built at the capital join a ship already in the raid pool.
ANSWER: Sure, (314.17) says a ship in the raid pool can be assigned a prime team, there is no requirement for the prime team to be already "built", or for the ship to exit the raid pool to get the PT.
===============================================
Harry Theodore: Where can I find information about "base stations".
ANSWER: This was answered by others, the base station rules are in Combined Ops, which is the combined publication of the latest revision of Special Ops and Marine Assault rulesets, and it included some new items like base stations that you won't find in the previous editions.
============================================
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |