Q (508.16)
So, does this rule mean that any time the owner of a planet fights over his own devastated planet he can take 3 free damage--even during raids but not in ESSC--for no bad effects? (508.162) says that you can't re-devastate to rack up points, but I suppose the defender can soak off three damage in raids and then three more in the combat phase.
Not that it matters, but I think that's ridiculous. I think the RDF should represent the thing you have to direct to re-devastate the planet, not a free forever damage sponge with no consequences.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 02:47 am: Edit

A (508.16)

---

Quote:

...This residual unit is destroyed automatically if the planet is devastated (508.21) and returns automatically if the planet returns to (or remains in) friendly ownership...

---

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 03:19 am: Edit

---

Quote:

(521.32) 'To conduct a ground attack, the ground combat ship must have been part of the Battle Force and survived the battle...'

That seems clear enough to me that having a G-ship on the line with a 4 BIR is enough to trigger the free directed damage ('...survived the battle...'), the final 'go/no go' remains for the survivers.

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 04:56 am: Edit

Well, I feel silly. The ISC SOP totally cleared it up - it says (as has been pointed out) that you declare the ground combat ships as eligible in step 5-4A5.

So basically, YES, you have to declare which ships will be used. You can of course abort the ground attack as also pointed above.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 09:03 am: Edit

Mark

On your Orion queston - not a FEAR answer - but as soon the Romulan entered Orion space and activated neutrality - the Feds ships have to leave - and the Coalition ship activating neutrality, can't be reacted to (503.511).

i.e. the Coalition ship immediately becomes an Orion ship in effect.

So - the 2 Pol ships in your example have to exit from Orion space immediatly moving 1 or 2 hexes.

The 'soft fact' information on what happens if the Feds try to stop Orion neutrality is not intended as an option - basically the Federation would cease to exist - and so the Fed's can't stop it - even if they wanted to!

By Mark Lurz (Marklurz) on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Thanks Paul,
Think this might be one to get a good answer from FEAR on.
Mark

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, March 05, 2012 - 09:49 am: Edit

---

Quote:

got a good question from my game tonight, I was able to move a Romulan ship into the Orion Enclave at hex 3012 and Immediately declared internment to force the Orions to go Neutral, the Federation had two police cruisers (one at each planet 2811 and 2812) which he reacted to my ship instead of leaving the now neutral territory and attacked my ship. as I read 503.511, would this not constitute "reconquering"? and if so what effect would this have on the Federation? rules state a dozen provinces would secede, which ones if this is so?

---

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, March 05, 2012 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Do remember that the Coalition ship must have a valid supply path at the time on entry in order to trigger neutrality, and that the Orion province rejoins the Federation at the start of an Alliance turn if it cannot connect to a Coalition supply grid. In _theory_, if the Coalition isn't careful about movement order and supply paths, the Feds could potentially retreat ships out of the Orion province in such a way that it will automatically rejoin the Federation! (Once in a blue moon event, but still something to think about.)

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Jason,

Not automatically, since it's only at the start of an Alliance turn it can rejoin, but what you say has merit. The ruloe does not say that all Federation ships must go to the same hex after all!

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 08:48 pm: Edit

Q446.12
Do Convoys building a colony (446.12) still act as a supply point?

By Chris LaRusso (Soulcatcher) on Friday, March 09, 2012 - 07:54 pm: Edit

Question on Raids:
320.353 and 320.34 says use BIR=4
does this mean total (assuming no SSC)?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, March 11, 2012 - 09:50 am: Edit

Tim, I'd suggest that the answer is no based on (412.24).

---

Quote:

(412.24) NO DOUBLE DUTY: Because a tug cannot perform two missions at the same time, a tug which is setting up a mobile base cannot simultaneously function as a supply point.

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, March 11, 2012 - 09:55 am: Edit

Q414.3 Does a Convoy have to be on a Strategic Movement Node under (414.3) to be moved strategically?

Rule for consideration:
(414.3) states that Convoy counters can move in Strategic Movement. This represents not the movement of specific freighters, but a redirection of the surplus. The actual freighters used in one area are returned to general use, while freighters in other areas are called into government service. Convoys do not count against the owning empire’s limit for Strategic Movement, but cannot be moved strategically to bases of another empire.

Arguement for not needing to be at a strategic movement location: The freighters are returned to general use by the Empire in question. While freighters in a new area are called up for Convoy duty.

bold used for emphasis

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, March 12, 2012 - 06:07 pm: Edit

Thomas, a good counter argument for requiring to be at a node is that the freighters cannot be released until they return to a logistics hub...

By Graham Stewart Wardle (Tasmerlin) on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 04:09 am: Edit

Hi again. My questions as transferred from another post. Firstly I am trying to understand rule 625.542 (from ISC War Rulebook). Can't help thinking this should read "at the end of Fall Y185". The way it reads at present it looks like the non-aligned players can run PHASE 1B (survey points) for Fall 185 as well as spring 186? In cordon Yankee am I correct in assuming that the PEZ runs from 5005 to 5901 and then 5901 to 6102? Also, the CEZ runs from 4905 to 5701 and includes 6101? That brings on another question. As planet 5403 is annexed territory and presumably undevastated, does it get the at start 2 PDU's of rule 508.111? A more frivolous question. Is it possible to get the name of the Grey Scale loser in Gorn Logistics Command who put the Mega-H outfit in the Home Fleet when the only unit that can use it (the HSV when its restored from crippled)is flying in the Seventh Fleet? (Hope he gets a bad infestation of scale mites). Could be handy though, as it can be used against the Andro's and the inevitable Paravian revanche instead of the Interstellar Cretins!

By Timothy Mervyn Linden (Timlinden) on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 03:52 pm: Edit

Maulers:

I have a mauler on the line. Deal 44 damage. Can I - direct cripple a DNG in form (36), then maul it to death(5+3) as my one DD usage? If no, why not?

While I had not thought of doing this before, the 2010 rules (can only maul crippled in form) and the seemingly two step process in using direct damage on the single target (do X to cripple, then 'repeat the process' to kill) implies to me you can do so, as the DN is crippled before you start the 'repeated' DD process. I somewhat doubt that is the intention, though.

Be nice to know for sure if you can do this, or if the target ship can only be mauled if it is already crippled at the start of the combat round.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 05:44 pm: Edit

TML, probably not because you only get one directed damage attack per combat round. As the target in question is not crippled at the start of the round, I'd say no you can't maul it after you crippled it with directed damage.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 07:40 pm: Edit

I doubt it is allowed, as otherwise there is little point to the limitation as your example shows.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Here is the situation. The Alliance is trying to retake 1401. There are a lot of Fed and Kzinti ships (25+ uncrippled each), plus 5 Gorn ships, of which 3 are DN and 2 are TG (no pods). All of the Gorn DN and one Gorn TG are in supply (homeless ships). All the Fed and Kzinti command rating 10 ships are crippled. The Feds spent 3CP, to give them +2 over the Kzintai system. But as best I can tell, the command points do not impact the flagship selection process. There are Fed and Kzinti drone ships and fighters.

I am excluding the crips from the flagship selection process. I would greatly prefer to have a line led by a Fed CC. The trouble is that it's not clear whether the flagship rules would require me to have a Gorn-led line. That could be done by using the 5 Gorn ships, plus 3 Fed/Kzinti ships and 3 independent fighter squadrons.

But from the rules, it's unclear if I would have to do this or not. The reason is that if my flagship candidates are the 3 Gorn DN, then I can exclude two of them from the flagship selection process. But the phrase "if this is impossible" in 302.321 is actually vague, as it is unclear whether excluding two of the DN "from the flagship selection process" means that I could pretend they don't exist for purposes of the "if this is impossible" clause. If I can exclude them, it then becomes "impossible" to have a Gorn-led line.

So what I would really like to do is exclude two of the Gorns as unchosen flagships, then decide it is "impossible" to have a Gorn-led line, then have a Fed-led line, and use the three Gorn DN on that line after all. But I don't know if that's legal.

I found a discussion from 2007 that may be relevant. But the archive is confusing to me -- it's not clear who wrote what. I'll copy it below.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 09:30 pm: Edit

Courtney originally brought this up, but after some discussions in General I thought it would be a good idea to distil some of the meat there to Q/A.

Nick,

There is a conundrum that needs your guidance that revolves around
________________________________________
Quote:
(302.321) The flagship must be from the race which provided at least 50% of the total ships in the battle force. If this is impossible (e.g., the top three command ships are Lyran, the only other ships are Klingon, and the Minimum Force rules require enough ships that the Lyran flagship would be outnumbered) then the "minority foreign flagships" are excused from the flagship selection process.
________________________________________


There exist examples of 4 different (and 5 different) races where it seems possible that it would be impossible to field a legal battleforce.

The details are laborious, and usually quite unlikely to occur, but it hinges upon how one interprets.
________________________________________
Quote:
(302.36)...Unchosen flagship candidates (302.32) may be excused from this calculation at the owning players option....
________________________________________


If one interprets "Minority Foreign Flagships" as a special group of "Unchosen flagship candidates" then all is well. The process goes on and all is well, at worst you end up being forced to throw a small line (of possibly one ship) up as your legal battleforce.

This is how I interpret that rule when someone pointed it out to me, however since it says
________________________________________
Quote:
"minority foreign flagships" are excused from the flagship selection process.
________________________________________


then one could be led to believe that the rule means you completly ignore them from the flagship process.. they are not Unchosen Candidates since they were found to never be eligible for the Flagship selection process and hence cannot be excluded from the 50% calculation detailed in (302.36)

I guess also on a technical note, if my assumption is correct and the minority flagships are indeed considered Unchosen flagship candidates, then the last wording should be clarified, as we wouldn't want an obstinant player saying "Well it says I can exclude them at my Option.. I won't exercise that option.. hence there can be no battle here" and then getting beat about the head and neck area repeatedly with a blunt weighted object.

Perhaps saying something to the effect of..
"may be excused from this calculation at the owning players option, provided the exercise of such option in whole or in part will result in a legal battleforce."

If however I am wrong, then indeed we have a problem I think, as there are combinations of ships legally allowed in a hex, that when they are attacked, cannot form a legal BattleForce, at which point, we do not know where to proceed.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 11:04 pm: Edit

I don't think you can decline to use the 2 Gorn DNs as unchosen flagships, negating the Gorn DN flaghips, replacing it with the Fed CC flagship, then put the Gorn DNs back in. If you put all the Gorn DNs in, then one must be the flagship.

I see the problem you are having though, if you pick the first Gorn DN as flagship, then you do not include the other 2 Gorn DNs (unchosen flagship candidates), your line is illegal.

The rules don't seem to cover this, but I suspect that either you must then choose the Fed CC as a flagship (and I do not think you could include the Gorn DNs), OR you must include all the Gorn DNs, with one as the flagship. I.e. it may be that this situation takes away your ability to not include unchosed flagships in the battleforce. I do not know which of these two choices is the right one (rules don't seem to cover it), or if a player should have a choice between the two. I am sure you cannot do a Fed CC flagship and then put all the DNs back in the line. If you do that I would say one of the Gorn DNs must be the flagship (as that would satisfy all the rules in question).

But, I am not FEAR, so this is just my opinion.

By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Saturday, March 17, 2012 - 10:47 am: Edit

Looking at this, here's my read on it all:

The Gorn ships would have to be excused under 302.321. Note that the minimum force rules specify that the flagship must use the "maximum number of units it can control in the battle force" if it can't use half of what's in the hex (which obviously is not the case here). With a CR of 10, the Gorn can only total 5 ships (3x DN, 2x TG) out of an 11-ship battle force (13 accounting for your command points), which is less than 50%. Note that per 302.351, an independent squadron counts as a ship for purposes of Command Rating.

The Gorn DNs, therefore, are removed from the process under 302.321. Assuming the Fed/Kzinti exclude their cripples (sensibly so), a Fed CC could be used as the command ship. The Gorn DNs could not be part of the battle force at that point due to the last part of 302.33 (since they have a higher CR than the selected flagship)

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Saturday, March 17, 2012 - 11:40 am: Edit

I agree with Patrick. The Gorns can be excused from flagship selection. It's the Fed CC, or DN if you were willing to use a crippled ship.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, March 17, 2012 - 12:10 pm: Edit

302.321 says that in this case the gorn ships you are speaking of are excused from the flagship selection process. In no place does this rule then state that they cannot be in the battle force as a non-flagship.

302.321 is a more specific rule than 302.33 and excuses the gorn DNs in this case from the flagship selection process, thereby overriding the requirement that the highest command rating ship (in this case) be the flagship. No where in this rule does it say you cannot include them in the battleforce.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, March 18, 2012 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Great, so now we are up to two issues:

1) Do fighters based off of carriers not in the battle force count when calculating whether or not the 50% rule has been satisfied?

2) Can excused flagships be ignored when determining the "impossible" clause of 302.321?