Don't forget that the Hydrans in particular got a ton of their cruiser counters changed from the 2K and earlier editions to the 2010 version because of the adoption of the half fighter factor across the board. Other ships from other empires also got this treatment but the Hydrans had the most ships changed.

Also the new 2010 countersheets are labeled Alpha and Bravo. Not ONE and TWO.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Q306 This may have been ruled on previously, but I see nothing in the 2K rules about it. It is a multi-part question:

1) Can crippled ships use cloak? 306.0 just says they must be in supply
2) Assuming question #1 is a yes, if a crippled ship uses the cloak, is there still possible pursuit?
3) If pusuit of a cloaked cripple is possible, what ships are eligible for the pursued force?

A306 Not finding any precedence on this on the BBS. 10 pages of search responses, but nothing about cloaked crippled ships evading.

There is a rule in 2010 that is 203.83:

(203.83) WHEN USED: Cloaked Movement is used only in Operational
Movement. It cannot be used in Strategic, Retrograde,
Reaction, Retreat (306.1), or Reserve Movement. It cannot be
used by crippled ships; see (301.8). Cloaked Movement cannot
be used by unsupplied ships.

This gives us some direction as to the intent. Cripples cannot use it during operational movement. So, no, no cloaked evasion by cripples.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 09:42 pm: Edit

(203.83) When Used: It connot be used by crippled ships; see (301.82)

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 06:39 pm: Edit

Q320.344 in view of 320.342: If a starbase is hit by a drone raid and takes 5 points of damage, is the starbase required to take a SIDS step, or do the 5 points of damage only become plus points which are applied on the ensuing combat phase?

The question turns on the word "can" in 320.344, which states that "Damage to a BATS, Starbase, or other units that use (308.8) SIDS (if the damage is insufficient to cripple or destroy the base) can be resolved as SlDS steps with 4.5 damage points (4 points for BATS) equaling one step. (emphasis supplied)

Note, however, that 320.342 requires that the base's fighters cannot be used to absorb this damage, with the exception in 320.344 that *leftover* damage *must* be resolved against the bases's fighters or PFs before leftover damage can be considered plus points.

Thus, the SB itself *must* take the damage. However, opponent argues that because the damage is insufficient to cripple or destroy the SB, that the phrase "can be resolved" is permissive language - in other words - that he is not required to resolve the damage as SIDS and may instead take the damage as plus points.

However, I believe that this interpretation is not at all what the rule intends, and if anything the word "can" is enabling rather than permissive. Thus, because the SB is *able* to take a SIDS at 5 damage it must, especially in view of the requirement in 320.344 that leftover damage must be taken on the base's fighters or PFs.

Furthermore, in normal combat if the base takes 5 damage and there is *no* other unit available to take the damage, then the base would be *required* to take a SIDS step. Just so, during the raid, the base would have to take a SIDS step.

Ruling requested, thanks in advance.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 06:45 pm: Edit

Q320.344 Follow Ups: If a SB takes 2 damage during a drone raid, *may* it take a SIDS step? *Must* the SB take a SIDS step at 2 damage since it *can* take a SIDS step with 2 damage. If the SB does not take the SIDS step, *must* the 2 damage be scored on the SB's fighters (assuming they are present).


Q320.344 Second Follow Up: If a BATS takes 6 damage during a drone raid, *must* it be crippled, or *may* it take a SIDS and the leftover 2 damage points on its its fighters (assuming they are present).

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 05:10 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Furthermore,in normal combat if the base takes 5 damage and there is *no* other unit available to take the damage,then the base would be *required* to take a SIDS step. Just so,during the raid,the base would have to take a SIDS step.

---

By Chris LaRusso (Soulcatcher) on Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 05:46 pm: Edit

That's 308.812 It's miss-numbered in the revised 2010 ruleset.

(just helping this isn't official) The defender isn't required to use SIDS(308.84). This means you need at least 18 points to be forced into taking voluntary SIDS or crippling your base. That's the way I've seen and played it.


A few exceptions could be a SSC (with a BATS or BS) or a commando raid where SIDS are scored or a SAF in the battle force.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 09:05 am: Edit

---

Quote:

This statement is false. If a SB was the only unit in the battle, and if it had no fighters remaining, then it is not required to take a SIDS step to resolve 5 damage. In fact the SB would not be forced to take SIDS steps until the plus point totalled 18 or more, as crippling a base that can take SIDS cannot generate minus points, it must take SIDS in that case. I do not have my rules handy, but the SIDS rules clearly state that SIDS taken by the Defender are always voluntary, and that plus points can be accrued until they are enough to cripple or destroy the base in question.

Edit: 308.112 is the rule in question, it even covers the case where the SB is the only unit in a combat. And it uses the magic word "could" instead of "can", greatly implying that the Defender would not be required to take voluntary SIDS steps.

---

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 09:51 am: Edit

Q 537.13
If a Coalition held Alliance planet goes into rebellion on the Alliance half of the turn, but the planet in question also has PDUs and independent "G" factors, I assume that makes the rebellion planet a battle hex, and the existing Gs would fight the rebellion during the Alliance turn--potentially suppressing the rebellion and allowing Coalition to collect income from the planet at the start of his own turn.

Remember, the independent Gs are already on the planet with the rebellion. This creates a battle hex which I assume would be resolved during the combat phase of the current Alliance turn.

Is this correct? Or must the suppression wait until the Coalition turn and combat phase?

Hydrax just went into rebellion, and I don't want other Hydran planets to get excited and join them. We want to crush the rebellion mercilessly before the news of its existence even gets out. Hydrax is crawling with Klingon and Lyran ground troops, so this should be possible...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Q453.2 Can an Op Base moving in conjection with atleast one ship enter a hex containing a neutral or enemy planet?

If so, then how is combat resolved?

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Thomas,

(453.21) says Op Bases cannot enter hex containing an enemy unit.
So no unless you find a different rule that would enable it.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 04:20 pm: Edit

DOH! I missed that part of (453.21). Disregard the question.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 04:53 pm: Edit

If the planet only had an RDU I think those aren't "units" though.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 06:27 pm: Edit

The RDF is not a unit, but the planet itself is a unit. So no love there.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 08:56 pm: Edit

Any thoughts on the rebellion question above anyone?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, May 14, 2012 - 07:43 am: Edit

Not a FEAR reply - but I think it was prevously rulled a Rebellion is NOT treated as normal combat.

So the fact the planet rebelled and you could surpress it on the current turn is not relevant -as I beleive you can only put down a rebelion on your turn - i.e. your forces are actually looking out for Enemy ships - not trying to find a few rebels.

(Equally though, the Hydrans can NOT treat the rebellion as a Battle Hex to send a reserve too).

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, May 14, 2012 - 09:02 am: Edit

Odd, I have the opposite recollection - that a rebellion *IS* a combat to which you can send a reserve. Also, you can suppress it on the enemy turn.

Anybody know of an actual ruling, or is this ripe for FEAR to rule on?

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Monday, May 14, 2012 - 06:11 pm: Edit

For the sake of clarity, it was my understanding that a reserve fleet cannot be sent to a rebellion if that is the only combat in the hex. My question is about independent Gs already on the planet that goes into rebellion. They don't need to reserve anywhere, and if the ground combat doesn't get resolved, you end the turn with opposing forces occupying the same location through turn end and into the following turn.

To me if the rebellion could be supressed on the same 1/2 turn it happens (by IGCEs planetside only), it would kind of add an interesting dynamic. Assume there is one independent G and a rebellion occurrs, the ground combat would be significant. Can the rebels defeat the existing occupying forces and sabotage economic generation from that planet? Or will garrison troops crush the rebellion before it can have any effect? Or maybe the rebellion is stopped, but the occupying troops take such a beating that they must be replaced--costing eps. If the rebellion does succeed, it not only denys income but costs the occupier eps for any IGCEs lost as well. I like this idea because it adds a little sub-game and strategy to the planetary occupation game.

Jose feels that if allowed, such a ruling would take away the point of rolling for rebellions at all because what's the point if they will automatically be suppressed? I feel this potential suppression is far from automatic--it requires the deployment of at least one PGB and one independent G (assuming orbiting Gs don't count for this particular purpose). How much will the occupying powers invest in controlling captured planets? I know in my own case that deploying only a single G and PGB would result in me losing the even-odds combat 95% of the time, so I would deploy two minimum to bring my own odds to maybe 50-50, or none at all. Surely most captured planets won't have any PGB/ICGE, much less several which would be required to "automatically" suppress rebellions.

I don't buy that the IGCEs are "looking outward into space." They have communications to tell them when to expect external enemy action, and spaceships can do a better job of monitoring the local "airspace" since they don't have to operate from inside an atmosphere, aren't stationary vantage points, etc. Troops planetside have the specific job to control the local population--especially the resource deposits, economic centers, and transport hubs. Sure if enemy ground troops come calling garrison troops defend from external attack, but I think they would specifically be guarding the production centers planetside, monitoring local activity, engaging in counter-insurgency and tracking all cell-phone calls, etc. I feel it is unlikely that the occupiers wouldn't find out about rebels halting production for 6 months until after the fact. Or if it's not production but distribution the rebels target--don't you think the local ground troops would specifically be guarding the warehouses full of disruptor pistols awaiting shipment? Or would they wait until someone blew the warehouse up and then go looking to find out who did it?
On the other hand I can see the counter-argument as well. Rebellions are an abstracted process and if the roll succeeds it already indicates that the rebels have been able to out-wit or out-fight the occupiers. The question becomes can the occupiers regain control of the situation for the next six month period.

I'm happy with either ruling, but would like this situation clarified.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, May 14, 2012 - 07:05 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Jose feels that if allowed, such a ruling would take away the point of rolling for rebellions at all because what's the point if they will automatically be suppressed?

---

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Monday, May 14, 2012 - 09:52 pm: Edit

But Jose does have a point in that the Coalition can make it virtually impossible for a rebellion to succeed if they're willing to invest in planetary bases and ground troops. In our current game I have lost several PDUs and Gs attempting to do precisely that--so it does have a cost.

Perhaps it should be possible to almost guarantee the delivery of certain resources though. It's not like the resistance in occupied France WWII could deny resources on a strategic scale (maybe cumulatively) during the actual occupation.

On the other hand planets are several magnitudes larger than France, and the occupying troops are by necessity so tiny in comparison to native population it is hard to imagine troops being stationed at most or even many of the strategic points without hopelessly dispersing themselves. Do we assume that a F&E ground combat element is a 500 man battalion with inherent ground attack shuttle transport? That sounds very high considering the ships they are carried on. If the CA Enterprise had a crew of 400 and some, how many troops can an F5G possibly carry? Depending on what technology would be available to the civilians/resistance, 500 men couldn't control a town of 50,000, much less a planet. In such a case the only "control" would be the threat of planetary bombardment on a biblical scale. The troops themselves would be reduced to doing punitive expeditions to punish sabotage or rebellion after the fact. Now if this were a game from Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" universe, maybe a battalion could cover an entire planet, but even then it would depend on the circumstances.

As I said I can see the logic either way though. The truth is the Gs planetside already do influence the initial roll to see if a rebellion occurs. Of course Gs on ships in orbit do the same thing. I guess being an ex ground pounder myself I would like to see independent Gs on planets have a special use, but I am happy with playing whichever way is correct.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Monday, May 14, 2012 - 10:42 pm: Edit

Come to think of it. I can not imagine a scenario where 500, or 10,000 troops could have any effect if a planet of presumably billions (or why do they generate eps in the first place?) decided to rebel.
After thinking this through, I guess I now agree with Jose. The only thing preventing rebellion at all is the psychological threat of retribution from space, and no realistic quantity of troops could prevent a planetary population that decided to cease cooperating and accept the consequences.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 - 09:28 am: Edit

I distinctly remember a ruling that basically said surpressing a rebellion is NOT a combat, but G-ships using G's to surpress the rebellion does cause a battle-hex so therefore reserves may be committed yada yada.

It seems though that ind. G's would not cause a battle-hex to be created.

I am almost positive this was an SVC clarification.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - 10:20 am: Edit

Request to review a rule.

Currently the text of 439 from FO provides in 439 the following rule from pg 4 of FO

---

Quote:

(439.16) Ships destroyed after single-combat [(310.0) or (504.4)] count as salvage for the winning ship...

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - 10:34 am: Edit

The way I see it, there's a disconnect between regular combat (where a fleet of 14 ships can't collect salvage for a lone enemy FF) and ESSC combat (where 1 ship can collect salvage for a lone enemy FF). My opinion is that the rules should be harmonized so that the player owning the dead FF gets the salvage in either case.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - 04:15 pm: Edit

But ESSC is now rule 310.0 in the 2010 rulebook, so the reference is still valid.

But I agree with Ted, this obsecure salvage thing is probably best removed, as most people forget about it anyway, or just make sure to have more than one ship so that's it's no longer "single combat".