I agree. Its why I asked for a review. I think as written the rule is black letter, in ESSC the 'winner' gets the salvage. Its just that it seems the rule is obsolete.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - 07:17 pm: Edit

We did harmonize SSC with other combat consequences of standard combat; please read ALL of the updated rule from F&E2KX...

---

Quote:

(310.52) OTHER: Salvage‡ (439.0), Capturing Ships (305.0), and Depot Level Repair‡ (424.0) die rolls are handled normally using those rule systems.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Chuck, thanks for that clarification.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 11:37 am: Edit

I guess I still need clarification.
So salvage is used normally, but the FO rule will be removed. So since the normal salvage rules without the FO rule don't say anything special about ESSC, each side in an ESSC collects it's own salvage normally (subject to other rules like the raid rules or capture rule of course). Is this correct?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Treat salvage like you do if you had used the standard combat system.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Got it. Thanks Chuck.

By Erich Weidner (Mettius) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 01:09 am: Edit

Fighter Operations: Missing Counters?

The setup for 607.34 (Four Powers War) has several fleets with the "SC" unit for the Kzinti.

Yet... I can't seem to locate such a ship counter. Anyone know what counter sheet this is on? Is it a typo?

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 01:46 am: Edit

It should be the SF.

By Erich Weidner (Mettius) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 10:08 pm: Edit

The OB for the Kzinti Home Fleet calls for an SF, but several other fleets list the "SC".

Does SC = SF?

By Erich Weidner (Mettius) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 10:14 pm: Edit

Did we capture the planet?

Situation: During combat at a planet, PDUs are destroyed. The defending fleet retreats and are persued by some (not all) of the attacking fleet.

The planet was not devistated at the time the defending fleet choose to retreat. No units were left behind, no slow units were in the fleet/etc.

Does the attacker automatically devistate and capture the planet (if that is their desire)?

Or, does combat end at this point and the planet remains uncaptured as it wasn't devistated during the combat?

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 11:36 pm: Edit

The planet is devastated and captured. Once the opposing forces are gone, there is nothing stopping the player from doing so. I'll try to post an actual rules reference when I get the chance, unless someone beats me to it.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Q302.721 Does a fully developed colony without any PDUs block pursuit?

Items for consideration:

(446.31) Planet: A colony planet is a planet for purposes of the rules, but cannot serve as a supply, retrograde, or strategic movement point.

---

Quote:

Would the answer be any different if: The planet has a defending fleet. During the first round of combat the alliance takes the damage on the fleet and RDU, then retreats. The planet still needs redevastating so the coaltion pursues the retreating fleet then comes back to the planet to redevastate. Can the coatlion fleet now retreat?

ANSWER (Nick): If you choose to redevestate the planet then since this requires further combat rounds you would not get to pursue. Treat it as if retreat were blocked under (302.721). Normally devestated planets do not block pursuit, but if you are choosing to stay at the planet, then that is effectively what happens. After redevestating the planet the coalition could then retreat. Alternatively you could pursue, (and not get to redevestate the planet), but then you cannot retreat yourself (307.1), last sentence, and you thus recapture the planet instead of redevestating it. ??

---

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - 02:39 pm: Edit

in Amicus to Turtles question

From F&E 2010 pg 38 (302.741)

---

Quote:

BASES: if the unit left behind is a bast station(double dagger), battlestation, mobile base, PDU, or Starbase (or other bases and colonies in future products), a retreating force is not able to take these units with them. Such a unit, left behind after ships retreat from a Battle Hex, remains functional and forces the players to return to Step 2 of the Combat Procedure (302.2) above. Ships leaving these units behind cannot be pursued...

---

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Thursday, May 24, 2012 - 08:14 am: Edit

There is a problem with the Romulan PWC for the number of SPs listed in F&E 2010 and Advanced Operations. It looks like the error was introduced in F&E 2000 when the number of pre-war SPs built was increased. In the following I am not counting the 3 SPCs (converted from SPs) in the quantity.

In F&E 2010 there are 22 SPs in the various fleets PWC but in the PWC list in (704.1) there are 27 SPs.

In Advanced Operations there are 24 SPs in the various fleets PWC but in the PWC list in (704.1) there are 25 SPs.

The differences between F&E 2010 and Advanced Operations are because Advanced Operations added an SPF to both the Home and North Fleet's PWC while F&E 2010 increased the SPs from 3xSP to 4xSP on Turn #8 and Turn #9 construction in (704.1). The increase in (704.1) from 3xSP to 4xSP is per errata in Captain's Log #27 page 102. However, per Nick Blank this errata was in error. The following was posted in the F&E OOB Discussion and Reports section on Friday, July 01, 2011 - 10:12 am in response to someone pointing out the SP count discrepancy:

---

Quote:

Romulan OOB:

There are 25 Sparrowhawk hulls listed in the various fleets under PWC, but the build schedule for turns 1-9 has 27 hulls.

Once upon a time, two were added to the build schedule, one each to turns 8 and 9 because when I counted them I thought there were 27 that needed to be accounted for. Unfortunately my mistake was to not only count the 25 in the PWC lists, but also count the 2 SP hulls in Home fleet that are NOT PWC, they are there from before Turn #1 and so should not be in the PWC.

Turns 8 and 9 of the build schedule should therefore have 3 SP hulls each (should be returned to their original value). The build schedule should then upgrad to 4 SP hulls on turn 10 like it originally did. This will give the 25 hulls needed to account for PWC on turns 1-9.

Nick Blank 7/1/11

---

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, May 24, 2012 - 09:03 am: Edit

The two that I had added should be deleted. When I counted PWC I accidentally included the 2 at-start sparrowhawks, which were built prior to turn one and so of course SHOULD NOT be accounted for in the 1-9 pres war construction. This is something I have reported before, but it has yet to be corrected. The initial error that caused the addition was mine. At least for the core rules. I am unsure how the additions to the OB like the SPG fit in.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 24, 2012 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Ryan:

Please look into this Romulan OOB/PWC issue with Nick and e-mail me a couple of recommended solutions. I will look it over and post my recommended solution to ADB.

Thanks,
Chuck

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 10:11 am: Edit

Q433.241: Is the following conversion legal:

Lyran FFT to Lyran DWS

A two-step conversion of FF to DWS is clearly legal and on the list of valid two-step conversions. But by 433.241:

"Any variant (except a mauler) can be converted into any other variant that the base hull can be converted into."

This to me looks like it's saying I can unconvert the FFT, but I'd have to be converting it into a different FF variant, and not a DW variant.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 10:30 am: Edit

How about FFT->DWT->DWS??

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Randy, per the SIT you can convert a DWS from either a FF or a DW. That's it. So I'm pretty sure that's not legal.

Basically the way I see it is like this:

By the rule 433.241, I can legally do the following:

Convert FFT to a FF and then convert it to a different FF variant, let's say a FFE.

The two step converion (437.1) let's me do the following conversion:

FF to DW to DWS

And that is also noted on the SIT. But to convert a FFT to a DWS would take the following:

FFT to FF to DW to DWS

And I can find no enabling rule that allows this.

Even your question Randy would be:

FFT to DWT to DW to DWS

Which is clearly an illegal two step conversion as by definition a two-step conversion is first to a larger hull, then to a variant of that larger hull. In that case you go to a larger hull, but then do not convert to a variant, but to a base hull. And that is not the letter of the rule.

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 12:34 pm: Edit

I was always under the assumption that the limits on downgrade substitutions under (450.4) was limited to two per empire per turn (unless indicated otherwise) for all such restricted ships combined, and that they could be substituted for a substitution. Obliviously this assumption was wrong, per Chuck Strong, who recently posted:

---

Quote:

"FF for any DN or CC or CA or NCL or DW" is shorthand to save space and can be re-written as:

FF for any (scheduled) DN (effectively limited to one since there is only one DN on the schedule)
FF for any (scheduled) CC (effectively limited to one since there is only one CC on the schedule)
FF for any (scheduled) CA (limit 2)
FF for any (scheduled) NCL (limit 2)
FF for any (scheduled) DW (limit 2)

---

---

Quote:

Downgraded substitutions of downgraded substitutions are NOT permitted as there is no enabling rule cited within this specific rule; (450.4). Note the phrase "The following list is comprehensive, but does not include substitutions already allowed in the rules."

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 03:45 pm: Edit

FEDS RULING

Two-Step Conversions & Unconversions

Unless overruled by ABD, unconversions (433.24) cannot be used as part of a two-step conversion under (437.0). However, the 1 EP unconversion can be done separately to yield a base hull; that base hull may be then used a part of a traditional two-step conversion. Conversion capacity must be available in the same hex for both types of conversions to be done on the same turn.

Rationale: Traditional two-step conversions involve certain production efficiencies (a change in hull size and adding major systems); unconversions add a de facto "third step" (removal of major systems).

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 08:21 pm: Edit

JTC - I do believe that you can downgrade both the FF and DW from the NCL, the 2 limit is 'TO a class' not 'FROM a class' (with some exceptions in the Lyran trimaran/catamaran downgrades and the Klingon F5L)...

As for the Kzinti BCH, remember that (705.2) is a specific limit while (450.4) is general one [specific overrides general]...

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 10:54 pm: Edit

Downgrade Substitutions Example

As I stated elsewhere:

"FF for any DN or CC or CA or NCL or DW" is shorthand to save space and can be re-written as:

FF for any (scheduled) DN (effectively limited to one since there is only one DN on the schedule)
FF for any (scheduled) CC (effectively limited to one since there is only one CC on the schedule)
FF for any (scheduled) CA (limit 2)
FF for any (scheduled) NCL (limit 2)
FF for any (scheduled) DW (limit 2)

(Obviously this example in (450.4) applies to all races and not just the Feds)

Not withstanding substitutions listed in (701.0) or those marked with a † symbol in (450.4), the best way to illustrate how downgrade substitutions work and the two-ship downgrade limit is to chart this in an example below:

Scheduled Ship	Downgrade Ship
.
D5 Slipway-1	F5W
D5 Slipway-2	F5W
D5 Slipway-3	F5
D5 Slipway-4	F5
D5 Slipway-5	E4
D5 Slipway-6	E4
D5 Slipway-7	No Other Downgrades Possible
D5 Slipway-8	No Other Downgrades Possible
.
F5W Slipway-1	E4
F5W Slipway-2	E4
F5W Slipway-3	No Other Downgrades Possible
.
F5 Slipway-1	E4
F5 Slipway-2	E4
F5 Slipway-3	No Other Downgrades Possible
F5 Slipway-4	No Other Downgrades Possible
F5 Slipway-5	No Other Downgrades Possible
F5 Slipway-6	No Other Downgrades Possible

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

Stewart is correct in that (705.2) is a specific limit while (450.4) is general one [specific overrides general].

As a reminder:
Downgraded substitutions of downgraded substitutions are NOT permitted as there is no enabling rule cited within this specific rule; (450.4). Note the phrase "The following list is comprehensive, but does not include substitutions already allowed in the rules."

FEDS SENDS

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Monday, June 04, 2012 - 11:02 am: Edit

Q(605.0):
The scenario timeline shows that the Tholians go to 75% economy on turn 26.
I assume this is an extrapolation from when the Klingons historically attacked the Tholians (turn 18).

Does this mean that if the Tholians don't join the war until turn 22, that they don't hit 75% econ until turn 30? Or, were the Tholians on a wartime economy sooner, so that they still go to 75% on turn 26?

We're on turn 27 already so an answer from anyone would be timely.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, June 04, 2012 - 08:02 pm: Edit

If the Tholians continue their peacetime construction then they are not at a wartime economy until the turn they actually go to war on. So if the Tholians aren't attacked until turn 20 then they would not go to 75% until turn 36.

(605.0) assumes that the Tholians were attacked by the Klingons under the historical game.