Yeah, I suppose it all makes sense when all the various rules are intertwined.

Man. That is a drag. So when attacking the captured Hydran Capital hex, the only way the Hydrans can fight with the Klingons is to fight over their Star Base. That is a lot grimmer than I was considering. Crud.

Thanks though!

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 24, 2012 - 06:16 pm: Edit

As far as I can figure, if the coalition doesn't leave a ship at a specific planet in the capital, then that planet revolts and the clock on getting income, etc, etc, resets. There's that at least.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, September 24, 2012 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Richard wrote:
>>As far as I can figure, if the coalition doesn't leave a ship at a specific planet in the capital, then that planet revolts and the clock on getting income, etc, etc, resets. There's that at least.>>

See, that's what I was hoping for. But that doesn't actually seem to be the case--as long as the Klingons hold the hex at the end of the combat phase (i.e. the Hydrans don't push them out of the Capital), the planets don't revolt, and the income clock doesn't reset.

The Hydrans enter the Capital hex. The Klingons can pull all of their ships to the Star Base they have established, the Hydrans can go and say hello to all the other subjugated planets, the Klingons don't have to defend them or leave ships there. Eventually, the Hydrans have to either attack the SB or leave the hex. As long as the Klingons still hold the hex, all those Capital planets (that they abandoned during the Hydran raid) are still captured and unliberated.

This is what I have been led to understand by this discussion

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 24, 2012 - 07:15 pm: Edit

Ah ok. Go to SB and start doing SIDS? Lose one ship, take rest on fighters? Could you manage that?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, September 24, 2012 - 08:14 pm: Edit

Eventually :-)

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Question dealing with partial supply grids and the transfer of funds (413.44).

Sequence of events:

Captured planet has been held long enough to generate 1EP, but is currently cut off from the Main Grid, so it is stored in a Partial Grid.

During player's turn another planet is captured.

At the beginning of the enemy player's turn, the new planet becomes a valid supply node, reconnecting the first planet to the main grid. EP transfer cannot happen at this point (413.441).

During the enemy player's turn, the first planet is recaptured, eliminating the only node that had been in the partial grid.

Are EPs free to float amongst all the nodes of the main grid before becoming part of the general treasury during the following econ phase (413.443)? Or are they 'stuck' with the original node(s) of the partial grid, and lost at that point?

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 03:28 pm: Edit

I think if they are not a designated satellite stockpile they are free to float. The recapture of the first planet does not eliminate the last node of the grid at the moment it was captured (indeed, it is part of the main grid at the moment it gets recaptured), even though the EPs had not yet formally been added to the main treasury.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Q601.12. Can the 6 unreleased Kzinti ships from Marquis fleet enter hexes 1705 and 1805 during turns 1 through 6? The rule says they can move within Marquis provinces, which includes these two hexes - but they were carved out into Duke's hold, so now I'm not sure anymore.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, September 28, 2012 - 10:11 am: Edit

Ted wrote:
>>Q601.12. Can the 6 unreleased Kzinti ships from Marquis fleet enter hexes 1705 and 1805 during turns 1 through 6? The rule says they can move within Marquis provinces, which includes these two hexes - but they were carved out into Duke's hold, so now I'm not sure anymore.>>

Heh. It's like this particular section of the rules is ambiguous and could use some cleaning up or something :-)

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Friday, September 28, 2012 - 10:37 am: Edit

Yet another reason why this rule needs cleaning up. *sigh* It was so clear and unambiguous once upon a time...

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, September 28, 2012 - 11:51 am: Edit

Yeah. I'll have to amend my proposal to the language change as well.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Q449.24. This rule states: "LIMIT: No race can sell more than four ships to the
WYN Cluster during any period of 20 consecutive game turns." Theoretically, could the Coalition sell eight ships to the WYN on Coalition turn 1? The idea is that each of the Lyrans and Klingons sell 4 ships to the WYN on turn 1, but then must wait until turn 21 to sell another 4.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Yes they could but I think the 8 ships would be of more value in combat at that point.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Found it:

(449.2) SELLING WARSHIPS TO THE WYN CLUSTER
Each year the Klingons, Lyrans, and Kzintis may each sell one warship to the WYN Star Cluster. There is no requirement to be “at war” to so this. No other race may sell ships to the WYNs. (Orions will have a special rule later. The Alliance and Coalition could mutually agree to allow other races to sell ships to the WYNs.) More ships could be sent, but they would be confiscated rather than purchased.

Rule copied directly from (449.2). This is in the beginning text of (449.2) and is an expressed limit.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 09:13 pm: Edit

Thomas, thanks. I knew something seemed hinky. Maybe that limit on time should be made part of the "limit" rule instead of up front in 449.2 for the warbook.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Q511.54: Can this rule allow a crippled ship to retreat individually that was crippled during the raid phase? This rule allows a defending player to retreat fewer than all defending ships from a capital hex during a capital assault in the combat phase. However, it is the raid phase. Attacker has conducted a drone raid. Defender has successfully pursued the raiders with one group of three defending ships. During the resulting one round of combat, one of the *defending* ships is required to be crippled. Defender is arguing that a "combat" has taken place in the capital hex, and thus argues that 511.54 allows the defencer to "partial retreat" the crippled defending unit. Attacker argues that 511.54 only applies to capital assaults which can only happen during the combat phase, not during the raid phase, so the rule is not applicable. Attacker believes that during raids units involved in the raid action *may* retreat. Thus, attacker believes that *all three* of the defending units (and only those three units) may retreat after the raid combat is over. Please rule, thank you.

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 - 10:23 pm: Edit

We have had an interesting situation come up that we are not real sure how to deal with.

A Hydran fleet, with some fast warships, has pounced on a Lyran/Klingon group composed of:

LAV*3, SAV*3, SAF*3, FHL*3, FTL, FTS*2

Now, the confusion. First, since they are all auxiliaries they can't withdraw before combat, so we have to fight at least 1 battle round. However, the SAFs are considered convoys for battle purposes (520.5), meaning each is treated like a base in the normal combat phase (so if 3, is that a 3 system capital assault?). However, if they are treated like a base (302.741) then none of the auxiliaries can do their retreat while any SAF still exists, as they cannot retreat if a base is present.

If they are just treated as additional slow units, and the whole convoy of 12 auxiliary ships fight a single battle before their retreat, do they go through battleforce determination normally, meaning half those units won't even be on the line?

302.135 states slow units cannot withdraw before combat

302.742 part D does specify if there is more than 1 slow unit, they are all combined into a single battle. However, it never clarifies how the battleforce of slow units is formed. Using normal rules for battleforce creation don't seem to apply as in other scenarios, like if a base is present, every auxiliary must hang around until the base is destroyed.

302.775C does state if the hex contains a "base-like unit" which the SAF is clearly one,

Another option is 521.62, which would convert the 3 SAF's into FTL*3 and FTS*6 which could then be treated as normal auxiliaries, though I'm not thinking that is viable.

756.3 states that an SAF is an "Auxiliary Unit" and a "Base-Link Unit" for purposes of 302.2.

Also, 304.41 states that if a player has only units that cannot retreat, the other player can choose both BIRs (plus variable), that is the case here too right? And for both the regular battle AND the slow retreat battle?

Basically, it really seems like the SAFs prevent the other auxiliaries from leaving as they are "base-like" and auxiliaries can't leave, and basically ensure all 12 of those auxiliaries will die a painful death.

The other significant choice is to treat the battle there were 3 bases, with 1 potentially SAF "excluded", but that'd probably still obliterate the auxiliaries.

I am also not real sure how to deal with creating an all-auxiliary battle force, as it doesn't feel right to let 1 auxiliary cover another, especially since 302.741 clearly states "any "slow" units (756.1) in the battle hex remain with the base and must be in the battle force", without any comment on command limitations (perhaps there simply aren't any).


Sorry if I rambled a bit, I tried to find all the pertinent references.

Basically, how the heck do we deal with this?

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 - 10:24 pm: Edit

Lets say I have a battle force of 8 LAVs. I *have* to place half of those on the line, so that is 4 LAVs, but it is more than the number of fighters that can be supported. So what happens to the fighters? Maybe they just stay on board the carrier and aren't "deployed", but would be lost if the carrier was directed on without being minus points?

By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 - 11:59 pm: Edit

Eric:
At least part of your question was answered in Q&A by FEAR on 28 OCT 11.

---

Quote:

Q302.742 My opponent has a fleet consisting of some crippled units and 5 LAVs, 4 SAVs, 4 SAFs, 4FHL, 3FTL, 5FTS. He then retreats. I choose not to pursue his non-slow units and attack these auxiliary units conducting slow unit retreat. He has more units than can fit in a battle force. How is this battle conducted?

A302.742 He forms a legal battle force as do you and you resolve your damage on the units in the battle force. Since this is a non-pursuit battle (scouts, drone ships, etc are allowed) only the units in the battle force are subject to damage.

---

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 01:17 am: Edit

Cool, thanks. However, based on that answer, I'm assuming if it was a pursuit, every slow unit would be in the battleforce, not just the units in the legal battle force. Ouch.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 11:56 am: Edit

There was another FEAR decision that said that only AUXes in the battle force are subject to damage during retreat (pretty sure).

By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Eric - Note the post quoted above is specifically talking about a retreat situation. Slow unit retreat is not a normal "pursuit", it is its own animal, functioning as FEAR ruled above. So based on that, the coalition only have to put up a legal battle force and the other units are immune.

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Ok, after reading EVERY Q&A that was posted on F&E regarding AUX/Slow units as well as re-reading all the rules lots of times, my eyes are bleeding, but this is my interpretation:

#1. The SAFs are very clearly "base-like" (756.3), which very clearly forces the other auxiliary ships into forming a normal battle force with them (302.775C). They could have offered an approach but that'd be silly.

#2. When the SAFs are destroyed, a slow retreat takes place, and every remaining slow unit is put into the battle line (but only those up to the max CR are counted for compot, just like regular pursuits with all cripples). I did find contradicting answers on if salvage is gained for either player on losses during that slow pursuit.

The only other possibility I could see is not treating the SAFs as "base-like", and doing only the slow retreat with every unit on the line (but only those up to the CR counting for compot). This does of course ignore rule 756.3, but could be a special case in this situation.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, October 11, 2012 - 07:55 am: Edit

Question: Can a Tug that is currently out of supply (but presumably will be in supply shortly) be declared a Supply Tug? (i.e. does a Tug need to currently be in supply to be established as a Supply Tug?)

(For example: A Klingon Tug is sitting in Hydran Space. It starts the turn out of supply due to a wall of enemy ships. During operational movement, the wall of enemy ships will be breached, re-establishing supply to the Klingon Tug. The Klingons want to set up the Tug as a Supply Tug so that when the wall of enemy ships is breached, ships further ahead of the Tug will then be in supply for combat purposes).

Thanks!