Well,. I don't see any restrictions on the Free Fighters (in regards to being only used in the capital) so it looks like you can...though it might not be able to if it already did a conversion during production...

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, April 19, 2012 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Q520.42. Can a MMG operate in a battle force in the same round that a SAF is used against PDUs when a SB is also present?

Issue: This rule provides "If an SAF attack is made, the attacker may not make a separate attack with Marines in the same combat round." However, rule 321.42 states that "A Marine Major General can only be used in a combat round in which at least one PDU or "base" (on either side) is available for a Marine attack."

Opponent A says that no marine attack is possible, so 321.42 is not satisfied, so no MMG can operate in the same combat round a SAF is used. Opponent B says that the SAF is targeted on the PDUs, not the SB and that the restriction against marine attacks only applies to the PDUs. Because the SB is still eligible for marine attacks, the MMG may be used.

Opponent A argues 520.42 does not say you cannot make marine atacks against the SAF's target, it says you cannot make marine atacks period

Opponent B argues the intent of the rule in context. The target of the SAF can't be subject to extra marine attacks, but it makes no sense that some other - completely different unit located in a different place - is unable to be subject to G attacks.

Opponent A counters that part of it is probably dealing with the fact that the fleet is busy doing things to make sure the SAF can get through. Otherwise a slow group of freighters should be easy to kill from a very safe distance, and as such the fleet cannot do that AND provide the proper support for other things like marine attacks.

Opponent B replies that we're straying too far from the rule, and that the intent of the rules seems clear to apply to the target of the SAF only.

A ruling is respectfully requested.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, April 20, 2012 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Q308.25

What happens in a Multi-System battle where minus points have been accumulated at several planets and a later approach round is ofered and accepted?

For example, say the Hydran capital has 6 minus points owed to the Coalition at Hydrax and 3 minus points at another Major planet (different system). And the Hydrans have 6 minus points at Hydrax as well. An approach battle is offered at this point. Do these points get combined in the Approach battle and resolved there?

308.25 is very specific about minus points accumulated at planets do not transfer to other planets, and it is also very specific about what happens to minus points during the first approach battles, but it is silent on what happens during an approach battle offered later in the combat process.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, April 20, 2012 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Not the FEAR, but I don't see a rule to cover that specifically, so I would assume the points stay at the planets they were first generated at. If the attacker comes back to the planets, the points are still there waiting. If the attacker retreats after the approach round, then the points would potentially go to the pursuit round based on existing rules.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, April 20, 2012 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Right what makes it confusing though is that the rule is so specific it reads like the points *only* will not transfer to other planets in the hex. Which can lead one to believe that they would get recombined at a later approach round and then split again if the attacker came back into the systems.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, April 27, 2012 - 02:27 pm: Edit

Q540.22:

Once the Federation goes to Limited War, can the Klingons still receive Trade income from Diplomatic Teams from the Romulans? I will also quote a Q&A answer related to this topic:

---

Quote:

Q540.22 I am looking at the rules for Diplomats, specifically trade between allies (540.22). It specifies that a valid strategic movement path between the capitals is required.

How then do the Romulans trade with the Klingons and Lyrans, since the shortest path between a Klingon base and a Romulan base is 8 hexes?

A540.22 The Federation is a future belligerent (503.4) and as such, the trade delegation is allowed to communicate until it is no longer a future belligerent. This allows for the diplomatic action using a Federation Strategic Movement Node (SMN).

---

---

Quote:

(503.41) STATUS: Empires which have not yet entered the War but which are scheduled to do so in the future (or which may in a free scenario) are treated as in (503.1).

---

---

Quote:

654.5B: If Empire A is at limited war supporting Empire B against Empire C, then Empire C cannot exert control into the A-B Neutral Zone to block Strategic Movement from A to B. This would trigger a war between A and C.

---

---

Quote:

Move released interned ships into their own territory immediately upon the next opportunity.

---

---

Quote:

If the Klingons do not move any ships into Federation territory, or into neutral hexes adjacent to Federation territory, these special "Limited War" rules remain in effect.

---

---

Quote:

However, the Federation is not "at War" with the Klingons.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, April 27, 2012 - 02:36 pm: Edit

Q602.4 When, exactly, is war declared between the Klingons and Federation (assume it's turn 7 or later)? The Sequence of Play does not say *when* war is declared. 602.4 sys "if the Klingons do not move any ships into Federation territory, or into neutral hexes adjacent to Federation territory, these special "Limited War" rules remain in effect." This rule implies that war is declared at the instant a Klingon unit enters the Federation neutral zone and does not accept internment. However, 703.21 states that the Imperial War Reserve is only activated, explicitly on turn #7 historically, if the Klingons are at war with three empires at once (Hydrans, Kzinti, Federation). Thus, if the Klingons activate the IWR during the production phase (assuming it's activated during the production phase), then necessarily the Klingons would have to declare war during production and not during movement. However, now I'm not even clear that the IWR is activated during production, but may activate during - say - operational movement as soon as a Klingon unit enters Fed space or the Fed neutral zone.

The reason why this matters so much is due to whether the Klingons can collect diplomatic income from the Romulans. If the Klingons are "at war" with the Federation, they cannot use the Federations strategic movmenet nodes, and thus cannot receive income from diplomatic trade with the Romulans. If this declaration of war occurs during production, then the Klingons would not be entitled to said income on turn 7 if they attacked the Federation on turn 7. However, if the declaration of war does not occur until later - say during operational movement - then the Klingons *would* receive the diplomatic income on turn 7 (but obviously not on turns 8+ unless the Klingons blasted their own SMN supply path to the Romulans through Federation space).

Clarification requested.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, April 27, 2012 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Q703.21 - when, exactly, during the sequence of play, is the Imperial War reserve activated on the turn the Klingons attack the Federation and is also at war with the Hydrans and Kzintis? See above question for why it matters with respect to diplomatic income.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, April 27, 2012 - 02:53 pm: Edit

On Q540.22, I think a key to realize is the potential confusion over the term "Limited War." The term "War" seems to imply that there is a state of war between the Klingons and Federation, and thus diplomatic income between the Klingons and Romluans would be cut off. However, I don't think this reading of the term "limited war" is correct.

Instead, the actual term used by the rules is "limited war to support ____". So, for example, the Federation may go to limited war to support the Kzintis. The "war" is to support to the Kzintis, and is not against the Klingons.

This fact is made black letter, as Rob pointed out, by 602.4, which provides explicitly that the Klingons are not "at war" with the Federation.

Thus, while the Kzintis may get some tangential benefits for the Federation going to limited war to support them (such as release of interned Kzinti ships in Federation space), such benefits are not relevant to the fact that the Klingons are not actually at war with the Federation.

Note, also, that 540.22 explicitly refers to the relationship of the Federation and Klingon during this time period. So long as they are "future belligerants" the Federation SMNs remain open between Klingon and Romulan diplomatic channels. Well, the Federation and Klingons are not "at war". If so, then they must remain "future belligerants", whether or not the Federation is at "limited war to support the Kzintis."

By Michael Tisdel (Jtisdel) on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 01:28 pm: Edit

Section "(654.1) Actions Which Are Allowed" [during a Limited War] from FnE 2010 says that the Federation can allow co-belligerents to use their SM grid as long as the ships leave Fed space by the end of the turn (Case K).

Section "(654.2) Actions Which Are Not Allowed" [during a Limited War] says "Anything not otherwise covered. Anything allowed “during war”
but not specifically stated as being allowed “during war or limited war” is prohibited." (Case Y).

Section (540.143) says that diplomatic ships are not interned by a neutral empire and goes on to define a neutral as "any empire you are not at war with".

All that would imply that the Diplomatic income would still flow as the text of (540.143) does not include the explicit text about limited war and thus Case Y applies.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 07:52 pm: Edit

Question for the FERT on using a SWAC when retreating.

Rule (302.7) does not place any restrictions on the use of a SWAC by a retreating force. I can't find any restriction in (518.0) either. As the rules do not seem to restrict this we are currently playing as though a retreating Federation force can deploy a SWAC without restriction and recover it if it is not directed on or lost due to specific use.

This however does not seem appropriate to me. A slow moving shuttle dropped out the back of a carrier that is accelerating in an effort to withdraw from combat should not be recoverable. The max speed on a SWAC with booster packs in SFB is 16 and it cannot use it's EW capability if towed by tractor (SFB J9.132). Booster packs are not available until Y180 in any case which gives a SWAC a max SFB speed of 8 prior to turn 24.

With these things in consideration, can a SWAC be recovered by a retreating Federation force, or is it's use during retreat an automatic loss for the Federation? Or should there be some limited chance of recovery (say a 1 in 6 chance) as it is moving, unlike a stasis ship that is auto killed?

There is no drastic rush on this, but it has come up in our local game and I would like a ruling on how we should handle this. Thanks.

Note: I am asking for a FERT ruling instead of a FEAR ruling because I believe that the existing rule clearly allows recovery, but I think that this is in error. As FEAR does not change the rules I don't think there's anything specific for Mike to actually rule on (unless we missed it digging through the rules Saturday). Again, thanks.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - 11:35 am: Edit

Dan:

Another way of looking at F&E pursuit battles can be seen more as a slower movement, rear guard action battle played-out over several days. There is a bit of abstraction involved here (after all this is F&E...) since the pursuer can attack ANY crippled vessels including those not present in the pursuit battle force. I guess this just comes down on how one interprets these abstract rules but I don't see an error of omission or otherwise in the existing SWAC rules.

As to the use SFG units by the pursued -- since an SFG unit must come to and remain stopped to use the power slurping SFG it is far more vulnerable than units and SWACS moving at slow speed. (Also remember that pursued units using the SFG are ONLY auto-destroyed if at least one pursuer remains UNCRIPPLED (312.264) at the end of the pursuit round).

FERT FINDING:
No Change Required -- The existing deployment and use of SWACs during pursuit combat is permitted as written in (518.0) unless ADB chooses to override or amend this finding.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - 04:12 pm: Edit

Questions sent to me off list:

My question has to do with the balance option primarily. I have looked on
the FE site for comments that cover these, but not seen them.



1) In 653.4 c Romulans can give up their 12 E4s for 8 points. Can they
instead chose to sacrifice 39 points of them (9 ships) under 653.1 E (which
nets them 20 points instead of 8).



2) In 653.4 b does the Romulan player have the option to choose one SP and
on SK for 9 turns at the cost of 12 points?



3) In 653.4 G does the Romulan player just add one SUP to the allowable
purchase each turn, or does he have to give up other ships (say a Novahawk
or Condor) to get them?



4) If Romulans use 653.4 E to add provinces, can they take ships away from
active fleets (including at start active fleets) to put there? I would like
to use the starbase in the unexplored province to convert ships from turn 1
ideally.



5) Is there any limit under 704 to the number of Novahawks or Firehawks
Romulans can convert each turn (assuming they have the starbases and ships
to convert from)?



6) In advanced operations, what turn does the Demonhawk become available?

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - 04:16 pm: Edit

That would make sense except that the SWAC is not actually deployed until needed and at that point in a retreat your fleet is presumable moving and trying to get disengage from the pursuing force as quickly as possible. Are you going to slow down to bring the SWAC back on board while you're trying to run? This really does seem like something that was simply forgotten or overlooked, but it can wait for a revision to be looked at since it's actually a pretty minor deal.

I'm pretty sure that Steve has far more important things on his plate.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - 08:12 pm: Edit

Dan:

Since this rule was part of the original Carrier War product from the 1990s it did get a second look when it was updated and included it Fighter Operations a few years back.

Besides we're not talking about an SFB Kuaffmann Retrograde-like battle but (as I see it) as an abstraction of a rear-guard action where there is some time plan a quick delaying action by the defender.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - 08:27 pm: Edit

See SFB scenario SH201 for an example of what Chuck is describing.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - 08:33 pm: Edit

DGK - Don't forget that anyone could 'hang' around to recover it (if not destroyed by)...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - 11:37 am: Edit

Q305.23 When converting a captured ship to your technology, does the tech conversion count against the conversion capacity of a Starbase? 433.22 is not clear in this regard of the technology conversion.

Q450.10 Can a conversion facility (minor or major) be used to convert a captured ship to your technology on the same turn the ship was repaired, provided the repair facility is in the same "hex"?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Q521.381. If a G ship is placed in the support eschelon to support a base or PDU, does it deploy its G unit(s) before or after directed damage? It matters, because if the answer is "after", then the enemy may direct the troop unit and kill it before the defending Gs can deploy.

Relevant rules: 521.381 states:

---

Quote:

(521.381) The defending troop ships providing this support must be in the battle hex but need not be in the battle force (they are in the support echelon, directed damage at 3:1), it being assumed that they deposited their troops and left the area before the attackers arrived. If they are part of the battle force, they can be escorted under (521.372) and (521.371); all provisions of those rules apply to defending troop and commando ships in the battle force.

---

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - 05:58 pm: Edit

In amicus to Ted's clarification request.

It seems the wording of the rule makes sense here. The troops have been deposited well before the battle at the base/planet.

These troopships while not present at the base/planet are however somewhere in the vicinity, so therefore it makes sense they would be in the support echelon for DD at 3-1 because a hostile attacker could go to great lengths to go after those transports even though they are remote to the battle itself(it makes me think of Jeb Stuart's Cavalry at Gettysburgh being remote from the battle going after logistic elements).

The troopships are not in the support echelon because they are trying to land troops, they are there so that the opponents can if they wish make a concerted effort (i.e. 3-1) to bag them.

So I would suggest the proper ruling is that the troops are in place before DD takes place.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, May 03, 2012 - 08:06 am: Edit

To add to Ted's Question (although it's not relevant to my game with him now!)

Can the defender over allocate G ships in the support roll?

example

BATS is being attacked.

BATS can be supported by 1 G - and so could the defender say allocate two FFG's - to ensure 1 G remains, in case the attacker directs on a FFG?

(A SB has an intrinsic G and can be supported a 2nd G, and so the numbers are the same).


Thanks

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, May 03, 2012 - 09:36 am: Edit

In relation to Paul's question - if the answer to my clarification is that the troops are deposited before directed damage (as appears to be the case), then "overallocation" is strictly unnecessary as there is no danger of failing to land the troops on a given battle round.

By Eric Phillips (Ericphillips) on Sunday, May 06, 2012 - 07:03 pm: Edit

I'm getting a FREE copy of the 1990 edition of F&E. I want to buy the 2010 rule book to use with it. I have a couple of questions:

1. Were there 4 or 8 counter sheets in the box?

2. When I get the 2010 book, will I have to buy the 2010 counter sheets to use it?

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, May 06, 2012 - 07:30 pm: Edit

IIRC

1 - 10 (216/sheet) countersheets, 8 for ships and 2 for fleet/markers

2 - yes, due to the changes between (separate carrier and escorts, separate base/PDU counters), advise getting one ONE, two TWO and two BASE countersheets (min, could get more) to both augment and supplement the box set...

By Eric Phillips (Ericphillips) on Sunday, May 06, 2012 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Thanks