Chuck -- I want to accept your answer, but it's not impossible to have the flag be from the race with at least 50% of the ships. You just leave out one of the F5.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, August 09, 2012 - 01:49 pm: Edit

Excerpt from (302.321): "...The flagship must be from the empire which provided at least 50 percent 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 in the hex 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."

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Sunday, August 19, 2012 - 08:29 pm: Edit

If you leave out one of the F5s, then that's not the same situation IMO. The question specifically addresses the case of two F5s and one CW. If you assume that's all there is in the hex, and form your battle force out of the minimum # of ships (in this case, two) picking one F5 and and the CW, then pick flags from that, the original problem disappears. In that case, the Lyran is not a "minority foreign flagship" and having the highest CR leads the force, as you point out. But if the battle force consists of the three ships, the Lyran cannot lead.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Sunday, August 19, 2012 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Regarding the PF question.
You guys keep throwing me with the *CAN*. Sure you can, but you don't want to...
We are now assuming a player *MUST* fill all existing PDUs from available flotillas (after receiving the free ones), not that you *CAN* do so. If I could avoid it I wouldn't waste PFs on Hydran planets that will never get attacked. The free PFs are simple, the question was if one is forced to fill all PDUs with PFs before any PFs go to the pool. It seems this is exactly the case. We have altered our own game to reflect this--fortunately the Coalition had just enough PFs in the pools to comply. This means lots of PFs wasted on planets where they will fight once at maximum then die. I would prefer to have those PFs in the pool to replace ones lost in combat and for new construction rather than having massive numbers tied up on shore leave. Obviously the free ones are OK, but imagine an enemy comes in and directs 4 PDUs with PFs (for 40 damage) then retreats. You just lost 72 compot of units for free (72 minus points remain not used). Sure you had high compot the one round. So you killed a DN, say, but you lost 72 compot for free.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, August 19, 2012 - 10:44 pm: Edit

Paul,

We are not assuming a player *MUST* fill all existing PDUs. The rule states they must.

---

Quote:

(502.615) says If initial deployment PFs cannot be placed on bases (because bases have been destroyed and not replaced) they must be placed on available PDUs within the limits thereon.

---

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, August 19, 2012 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Errr, Paul, 4 PDUs has only 60 COMPOT [4x(3+6F+6PF)]...now the question is - how much damage did you do to him?

Oh yea, did you lose any attrition units during the approach battle, here's the (initial) free refill...

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Monday, August 20, 2012 - 09:55 am: Edit

Ryan--understood, I just said it differently. We are now playing the "must."
Stewart, 4 PDUs have 24 Ftr factors and 24 Pf factors=48 "attrition" compot that die for free once the PDUs are dead--so I stand corrected, but losing 48 compot for free is still a big waste. Yes, you could have lost attrition units in the approach (if possible, PFs, in order to mitigate what I describe above).
Without spitting hairs about details, it's safe to say you could lose those PFs for "free," and that's what I'm describing.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, August 20, 2012 - 07:13 pm: Edit

Paul, those 48 pts of attrition become involuntary minus points if they don't have a place to land.

That's almost a full round of damage for free in the next round.

There's a big difference between losing 48 pts of attrition for nothing and 48 involuntary minus points. Even if the enemy flees you can carry those points over into the pursuit round and have lots of fun killing the enemy while he can't do anything.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, August 21, 2012 - 11:03 am: Edit

Hey guys... take this in the spirit it is meant But please take the PF deployment discussion to general unless it is information FEAR might need to make a ruling. I know Mike C and Chuck would appreciate it while they look for the info to make a ruling!

I am as guilty at times of posting in Q&A when I shouldn't as the next guy so I am not pointing fingers I am just pointing out!

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, August 21, 2012 - 12:25 pm: Edit

Mike, speaking of issues irrelevant to Q&A - you owe me some stuff in our game.

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Thursday, August 23, 2012 - 08:21 pm: Edit

I seem to recall something about Kzinti making Battlegroups using CVE+light escort, but I also recall something about this being banned?

Are you able to use carrier groups to meet battle group requirements, not just carrier battle groups?

I dont have the 2k10 rules, so apologies if this is clear in the new rules set.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, August 23, 2012 - 08:32 pm: Edit

That exception (Kzinti CVEs in battlegroups) was revoked. In a Cap Log I believe, I don't think it has made in into a rulebook yet as 2k10 has nothing to say on battlegroups (that being an expansion set rule), and that expansion set has yet to be updated to include the ruling.

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Thursday, August 23, 2012 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Ah okay thanks. I knew I read it somewhere !

Would have been nice having a CVS, 3xCVE and a Tug_BP+VP with escort

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, August 24, 2012 - 12:08 am: Edit

The Kzinti CVE exception was revoked in Captain's Log #37.

The rule hasn't been updated because the expansion that battle groups are in hasn't been updated to the 2010 standard yet.

Jason, with an Admiral and Command Point you could still put that line up.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, August 25, 2012 - 04:44 pm: Edit

So the Seltorian rules in Captain's Log #44:

Full well realizing that this is playtest stuff, and not everything has been thought out yet, here is something that seems like a totally possible situation--what happens if the Klingons don't control hex 2417 when the Seltorians are supposed to show up on T28?

In the game I'm currently playing, all of south east Klingon space is full of Federation ships. And it is unlikely that the Klingons will control any of it by T28. If, hypothetically, the Seltorians were going to be set up (they aren't, but still), where would they go? The Feds certainly aren't going to let them move in.

Ideas?

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, August 25, 2012 - 08:09 pm: Edit

They could automatically take control of that hex anyway, and try to launch attacks on the Tholians. The Feds get to have fun squashing bugs.

Or the Selts set up in a corrosponding hex in Rom space, say 3418.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, September 07, 2012 - 11:13 am: Edit

Q625.Y423 (625.Y423) Do the bases in 4903, 5601 and 6101 include PF modules?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, September 09, 2012 - 11:14 am: Edit

(709.0-IW) General HQ: The ISC War Order of Battle lists 2xVAP for the Hydrans. However I can find no reference in the Pallets for the VAP. Is this a duplication of the 2xVP which are the carrier pallets or some other pallet already listed?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, September 09, 2012 - 07:29 pm: Edit

So Fed Third Way CVBGs. When you stick two CV groups together, you get to count them as 1 ships less (i.e. 2xCVS, 2xNAC, 2xFFE count as 5 ships when made into a CVBG). Does this mean that the Feds can have an extra ship in a pursuit force? (i.e. usually, a pursuit force maxes out at 6 ships. With the CVBG above, can the Feds pursue with those 6 ships and then a DNG stuck on?)

By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Sunday, September 09, 2012 - 08:08 pm: Edit

Peter - Not an official answer, obviously, but 502.923 states that a CVBG counts as one ship less for battle force command and reserve movement. No mention of pursuit there, so... nope, still limited to six physical ships

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, September 10, 2012 - 08:18 am: Edit

Peter - to follow Patrick and also not official. The Battlegroup rule which is very similar allows one to take 6 ships and count them as 5 very specifically considers pursuit and straight forwardly denies the possibility of using a BG to get an extra ship into the pursuing force. While they are different rules they are VERY similar and I would think be parallel in regards to pursuit.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, September 10, 2012 - 11:08 am: Edit

That seems reasonable. It is surprising that there isn't an official answer somewhere.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, September 10, 2012 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Peter,

I imagine FEAR or FEDS will pipe up eventually on this. As I said Patrick and I are speaking non-officially! I have been right on things in Q&A about 4 in 5 times, but I have missed some doosies, so I would wait on an official answer before you edit your rulebook in pen!

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, September 10, 2012 - 03:31 pm: Edit

(502.923) A CVBG counts as one ship less than the number of ships it contains for purposes of Battle Force command and for Reserve Movement.

(307.21) [Pursuit Force] CREATION: The non-retreating player designates some of his uncrippled ships (no more than six; a flagship able to control the force must be included) as a Battle Force to pursue the retreating enemy.

Bottom-line: You cannot pursue with more than six ships.

FEDS

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Thursday, September 13, 2012 - 01:35 pm: Edit

So I started playing a Cyberboard game to get back into F&E and came across something wacky IMO.

The rules for the 601 scenario, in regards to the Kzinti Marquis fleet, in F&E2010, state:

"The ships left behind cannot not count non-ship units, slow units, or auxiliaries*. These ships (and the Federation Fourth Fleet under Limited War) are released if a Coalition (or Orion mercenary hired by the Coalition) unit enters either of those provinces. "

Ok, makes sense, enter the 2 provinces bordering the Feds and the Feds get upset and go to a limited war with you.

However, F&E2010 adds:
"The Marquis area remains an "unreleased fleet" until the Federation enters the war or until the Klingons invade this area, so any bases there cannot be upgraded and no new ones can be built. Hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet, so while that BATS in that hex can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation. "



Ok, so now attacking the BATS at 1805 won't make the Feds upset, but attacking the one at 1902 still will. Seems wacky that the Feds just don't like a 1805.

Anyway, now the major issue IMO:
The rules state entering the province makes the Feds want to go to war, but attacking a BATS within the province is ok by them. This is kinda ludicrous IMO, but now the hole.

What if a Klingon fleet in 1701 goes to 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, and 1805 to attack the BATS there. It "entered" one of those 2 provinces that set off the Feds, yet attack the BATS so the Feds aren't upset anymore.

IMO, though 1805 is in the Duke's Fleet deployment area, it is still in the province and *would* set off the Feds. There is simply no logic IMO on how the Feds wouldn't be upset if a BATS 2 hexes away from their border gets attacked, but if a Klingon fleet parks in 1705 they get all upset. While that BATS may belong to the DUKE fleet, the BATS is in a bordering province to the Feds.

Hopefully I made my confusion clear on that, it just seems like a crazy rule that in fact contradicts itself (a province holds a BATS after all) to me.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, September 13, 2012 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Eric wrote:

---

Quote:

What if a Klingon fleet in 1701 goes to 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, and 1805 to attack the BATS there. It "entered" one of those 2 provinces that set off the Feds, yet attack the BATS so the Feds aren't upset anymore.

---