Archive through October 15, 2012
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A:
Archive through October 15, 2012
Quote: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.
This is not right. One cannot assume that because SAFs are "base like" that all SAFs must be on the line and no retreat is possible until all are killed. Note that under this logic the same result would happen for FRDs and convoys, and that is clearly wrong. "Base like" simply means there will be an approach battle, and at least one SAF must be on the line. This logic also ignores (302.2122), which clearly provides "They [SAFs] can only be damaged if that base is the "focus" of the attack." So, if one of the SAFs is the "base," then the other "base-like" SAFs are not the "focus of the attack" and cannot be damaged.
This reasoning also ignores the clear, more recent ruling by FEAR that:
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
This ruling makes no sense at all if all SAFs must be treated exactly like bases and cannot retreat until destroyed. After all, 4 SAFs are in the retreating force. That could not be possible if all had to be killed as "bases" before the slow retreat could take place.
I see an argument here that one SAF in an AUX park must be included in the battle force, but after that the rest is clearly wrong.
The ruling does address some of the slow units stuck at bases stuff. So that helps. It does look like there was an unanswered followup question on that same topic that would be the exact answer we need 
Looking at SAFs as convoys instead of bases:
The whole base-like thing is because the rules state that under 756.3 that base-like units are “Treated as bases for purposes of (302.2) Combat with bases.” Not 302.221, not 302.741. but 302.2xx and everything underneath. Let us go with reference 520.5 that clearly states that SAFs must be treated as convoys for purposes of combat instead of the more vague term “base-like”. So, when 302.2xx refers to Convoy that includes SAFs, which does make sense, as that is what they are. Under 302.231 it actually specifies that “if there is an FRD and/or convoy in the battle hex, it/they (all) must also be included”. And again under 302.323 all convoys must be in the battle force, and thus all SAFs. This is again (3rd time!) enumerated in 302.335. Thinking of them as convoys (which are also base-like, but explicitly referenced) seems to work pretty well and seems more clear, but does put SAFs on the line every time.
302.2122 specifically states that convoys group near bases, and if SAFs are indeed treated like convoys, the only rule that would apply here since there are no actual *real* bases would be the approach battle to your defended group of SAFs. After which the SAFs are just convoys. And unfortunately convoys are always on the line.
The FEAR clarification that I states that there is a normal *retreat* battle takes place is acceptable, but I really think that the fact that SAFs are different than the rest of the auxiliaries listed was not included in the thought process that created the answer. That followup asked just about the same thing.
I have a revised take on this issue. I'm re-phrasing it in the form of an official question in the next post. That way it can be resolved.
Q302.2: Are FRDs, convoys, SAFs, and true bases (BATS, etc.) actual bases to be given different locations, and one selected for the focus of the attack, as they are all included in the entirety of rule 302.2 per 756.3 (these are "base like" units and 756.3 says 302.2 applies to all such units)?
The issue comes up when an enemy attacks an AUX park comprising multiple SAFs and convoys and other types of AUXes. 302.2 in view of 756.3 says all the SAFs and convoys are "bases". However, that appears to lead to direct rules contradictions within 302.2 itself.
Specifically, if a SAF(or convoy) is basically a "base" under all of 302, then you have an inherent rules conflict between 302.231 (all FRDs and convoys must be included), 302.2123B (can exclude a "base" - read - SAF or convoy by operation of 756.3), and 302.2121 (which allows me to assign multiple "bases" to different locations) and 302.2122 (which allows convoys and hence SAFs not with the "base" under attack to be sheltered).
Thus, if it is true that a SAF is a "base" for *ALL* of 302, then I can exclude one of the "bases" (read SAF or convoy). This appears to directly violate 302.231, which requires that they all appear on the line. Thus, an argument can be made that you can force N-1 "bases" (which are SAFs and Convoys under this rule per 756.3) on the line, where N is the number of "convoys" or SAFs.
But, an argument can be made that you have N separate base battles, as I designate them (all "bases") as at all different locations. In this case, you can only designate one as the focus of the attack. Thus, an argument is made that you can have 1 exact "base" or convoy or SAF on the line, the others not being part of the battle as they are in different locations. Again, this appears to directly violate 302.231.
But, an argument can be made under 302.231 that all FRDs and convoys (and hence SAFs) must go on the line, regardless of which one is the "focus of the attack." However, this appears to violate 302.2122 (ability to exclude convoys at bases not the focus of the attack) and 302.2123 (ability to call different SAFs "bases", put them in different locations, and force the attacker to make one the focus of the attack).
After re-reading all of these rules several times, I think 302.231 is the more "specific" rule, as it is clearly saying convoys/SAFs all go on the line in excess of command ratings, and the rest of the mumbo jumbo about designating "base" locations and selecting the "base" that is focus of the attack is not so much about convoys and SAFs as it is about "real" bases. Additionally, 302.211 states that an FRD can be required to be on the line, but earlier this rule also referred to convoys (and hence SAFs). This rule hints at the rules overall intent, which is to require FRDs, convoys, and SAFs to all be present at the "base" battle - unless - the SAFs/FRDs/Convoys are at a "true base" that is not the focus of the attack. The stated intent of 302.211 combined by the specific statement in 302.231 I believe shows what the drafter *meant* to say despite the clear rules contradictions pointed out above. That is, I *THINK* the meaning of making SAFs and convoys "bases" is that they're subject to requiring an approach battle, and [unless there are 1) more than one TRUE bases in the battle hex and 2) the vunlerable units are at a true base NOT the focus of attack] none are sheltered and all may be vulnerable.
Ruling/clarification requested. Also, no matter what, I suggest the rule be updated so that the treatment of "base like units" and "true bases" is better defined.
FYI I was Ted's opponent in this, and we eventually came to a consensus. We played it out by me (attacker) offering Approach, defender obviously declining. The defender then put all 3 SAFs on the line, like a convoy, and a normal battle force of 6 auxiliaries. After taking considerable damage (destroying all 6 auxiliaries) the SAFs and the rest of the fleet then fought a standard slow retreat battle (which only 3 ships were a part of, none being SAFs), that wiped out the 3 auxiliaries on the line, allowing 3 plus the SAF to escape.
End result was the SAFs, an LAV, and an SAV survived. An FTL, 3xFHL, FTS, 2xLAV, all died in the battle round, and 2xSAV and an FTS along with the 3 SAFs survived to fight another day. The 2nd battle was able to put a CR 3 ship on the line as it was one of the 3 flagship candidates, and basically was what allowed the SAFs to escape unscathed. If all ships had to be in that battle, nearly every ship would probably have died.
I too would like to see if we did that right.
Apologies in advance if this has already been addressed (I don't have the relevant material to hand right now); but in the wake of Ted and Thomas' X-ship clarifications elsewhere, I wanted to clarify one point:
(523.32). Are there any exceptions to, or adjustments of, the ability of X-ships to kill attrition unit factors when attempting to target Hydran battle forces which include their own X-ships; on account of the (assumed) presence of the Stinger-X fighter? (Or to put it another way, is the Stinger-X enough of an improvement over non-X Stingers for it to gain an increased amount of protection on the F&E level; or is the difference lost in translation?)
Q535.11 Do the ISC get their first mega fighter counter(s) in the spring of Y179 like the Federation and other empires under (535.11)? Note that (535.12) has been modified in ISC War to state that the ISC may build 2 megafighter counters per turn.
I realize the above could be an SIT question, but the SIT itself is blank in the YIS for both the Mega Fighter and Heavy Mega Fighter Counters. This oversight is the reasoning for my question.
Q535.31 Can a carrier which has both standard fighters and heavy fighters such as a CVA(H) or ACS carry and use mega fighter counters for both the standard fighters and heavy fighters provided that the ship in question has both mega fighter counters associated with it at the point of combat?
(I'm going to repost this simple question, as I need an answer and it kind of got buried :-)
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!
The tug must be in supply at 2B7 in the sequence of play (105.IW) to be eligible to be a supply tug for the remainder of the turn. See also (412.2).
Thomas wrote:
>>The tug must be in supply at 2B7 in the sequence of play (105.IW) to be eligible to be a supply tug for the remainder of the turn. See also (412.2).>>
This would make perfect sense, except that I can't find anywhere that actually says that a Tug must actually be in supply to change mission or be established as a supply TG. I can find something that talks about needing to be in the same grid as a given pod to get that pod. But none of the rules referenced (105.IW or 412.2) or any other rules I looked at actually indicate that a Tug needs to actually be in supply to change missions or specifically become a Supply TG. Is there a rule that I'm not seeing (which is certainly possible)?
Peter, the Tug (or Convoy) extends the supply grid but is not actually a part of it. See (413.3) and (414.1).
One other thing to remember is that if your supply tug is forced to retreat then it automatically loses it's status as a supply tug, so that would imply that at the moment of movement (of any type) it becomes a tug with mission M rather than mission D. See (412.23) and (509.1).
FEAR will need to rule, but my suspicion is that the Tug is defaulted to it's normal mission M if it cannot connect to a valid supply grid, and probably the main supply grid at that.
Q314.241. Does pinning apply during raids? Example: Ship A and Ship B are in adjacent hexes and also are in adjacent provinces. Raider sends Raider A and Raider B, one against each Ship A and Ship B. Defender wants to react Ship A into Ship B's hex to reduce losses. Raider says that both ships are pinned by the simultaneous raid. I thought, but could not find, a ruling that pinning did not apply and Ship A could react - but I can't find a ruling. I did find a related ruling that seems to indicate that pinning does apply (copied below). Was I wrong about this all along?
Copied possibly related ruling:
Quote:Q: Can a ship use extended reaction against a raid to move one hex toward a raiding ship but not enter the raid hex? (This would be a sneaky way to reposition ships for later in the turn.)
A: You have to continue to move into the raid hex, unless pinned along the way (314.241).
So 2 Federation CLHs could, with Diplomatic Teams on board, move to the devastated Kzinti capital (or anywhere else) to help with recovery (540.28).
Do the Feds get mad when the Coalition destroys them?
Could they help with Combat Support (451.32)?
As they don't count against command limits, they could add +2 compot to the defense of Kzintai.
Ref: Q314.241
Facts:
Raid ships cannot pursue after the one combat round (including crippled slow units); See (314.244).
Raid ships cannot block or open supply lines; see (314.18).
Ruling by FEDS:
Raid ships cannot be used to pin any other unit during a raid. They are in no position to pin other units as their raid time on station is extremely limited and narrow (that is why only ONE unit can react to one raid ship -- there is simply not enough time for more than one unit to react to a raid ship).
Quote:(540.28) MEDICAL: An FHL or CLH from a (currently, even if temporarily) Neutral Power could enter the territory of a race at war to provide support for devastated planets, but only if a Diplomatic Team is on board. The Diplomatic Team can have no other function.
Ruling by FEDS:
One DIP team only allows one hospital unit to enter the territory of an empire at war for the sole mission of devastated planet recovery; the empire owning the hospital unit and DIP does so at its own risk. The 'guest' hospital unit is not exempt from a directed attack and cannot be taken as a casualty by the host empire unless their are no other host empire units available to resolve damage upon.
Quote: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?)
There is no requirement for a tug to be in supply at the moment of assignment to be ASSIGNED the supply tug mission.
However, to FUNCTION as a supply tug requires that the tug to be in supply a the moment a player wishes to execute any aspect of the supply tug mission. So it is possible through combat and movement actions throughout a player turn that a supply tug could drift into and out of active duty as a supply tug.
Chuck wrote:
>>However, to FUNCTION as a supply tug requires that the tug to be in supply a the moment a player wishes to execute any aspect of the supply tug mission. So it is possible through combat and movement actions throughout a player turn that a supply tug could drift into and out of active duty as a supply tug.>>
Ok, thanks. So a Tug that is *currently* out of supply (during step 2B7) can be assigned the mission of Supply Tug (even though it is not in supply, and thus not a valid supply point) and then later on during operation movement, if it subsequently can trace supply to a valid (non other supply Tug) supply point, it can then count as a supply point on that turn.
(For illustration--there is a Klingon TG in Hydran space. It is within 6 hexes of a valid Klingon supply point [planet] from the main supply grid, but there are enemy ships between it and the supply point at the start of the Klingon turn. During step 2B7, the TG is out of supply. It declares itself as a supply TG, but is not actually extending the supply grid at present time. During operational movement, Klingon ships open a valid supply path at connect the TG to the main supply grid. This means that the TG is now a valid supply source, meaning that Klingon ships ahead of the TG [i.e. deeper in Hydran space] are in supply for the purposes of combat, etc.)
On the raid question 3 questions back asked by Ted Fay.
Does that mean that if 2 ships adjacent to each other are both targeted by raids, 1 of those ships can react into the other hex resulting in 1 raid ship facing 2 ships, while the other raid ship faces 0?
The ships are obviously not pinned for the operational phase that comes after, as the raid ships are no longer there by that point.
Peter, sounds correct except that the mission assignment would be done in phase 1F for that tug. Phase 2B7 is for newly constructed tugs, and if the tug was newly constructed it is presumably in supply.
Eric, that's pretty clear that the answer is yes. If raid ships cannot be used to pin, then clearly neither of the defending ships are pinned and either can react to the other raid.
FEDS: thank you for the very rapid reply.
Nick wrote:
>>Peter, sounds correct except that the mission assignment would be done in phase 1F for that tug. Phase 2B7 is for newly constructed tugs, and if the tug was newly constructed it is presumably in supply. >>
Tugs that are being assigned to the Supply Tug mission are assigned during a mysterious extra step (that I thought was 2B7 when I wrote that), which is specific to supply tugs. I'm not completely sure when that is off hand (as I don't have rules on me), but it is a weird step.
From SoP (105.0):
Quote:3A-2B: Designate and move normal raiding ships to raid target hexes (314.21); move Espionage and Sabotage Prime Teams to their target hex (534.15).
3A-2C: Target empire may use Reaction Movement to respond to raids (314.241) OR may call up, if eligible, police ships to fight raiders (314.243), but not both.
3A-2D: Target empire declares which ships will fight the raider (314.251).
3A-2E: Raiding ships and reacting units conduct one round of small-scale combat (314.244).
3A-2F: Raiders crippled or forced to retreat are returned to raiding pool (314.244).
3A-2G: Reacting ships forced to retreat must do so (314.244).
3A-2H: Record disrupted locations from raiding (314.27) or conduct alternate attack (314.28) if eligible; conduct Espionage and Sabotage Missions (534.12).
Quote:Does that mean that if 2 ships adjacent to each other are both targeted by raids, 1 of those ships can react into the other hex resulting in 1 raid ship facing 2 ships, while the other raid ship faces 0?
The question makes the assumption that a specific target unit is announced before raid reaction and combat; this is a flawed assumption. The raiding player first announces and moves to a raid target hex, then, after any reaction and combat, he may announce province disruption or conduct an eligible alternative attack on a unit within the hex.
Be aware that nothing prevents an eligible ship from reacting to a raid in another hex if its current hex is also raided. If fact, ship Z in target hex Z could react to a raid in hex Q and then the raided player could call-up a police ship in hex Z to respond to the raiding ship there.
Reminder to Players:
The SEQUENCE OF PLAY (105.0) is in fact a rule in and of itself; actions of the SoP must be completed in the precise order given.
Players are encouraged to refer to the SoP and not make assumptions as to when a given event or action occurs. If there is any question as to when a given event or action occurs and it is not addressed by the SoP, please notify the F&E staff in this forum so that that specific issue can be addressed and/or added to a future SoP.
FEDS Sends
Quote:The question makes the assumption that a specific target unit is announced before raid reaction and combat; this is a flawed assumption.
FEDS, I believe the assumption is that actually once the raider arrives, the raider pins everything in the hex (up to it's pin capacity). The assumption is based on the statement in rule 314.241 that "Each raid may be countered by one ship (or full ship-equivalent of fighters or PFs) moving by Reaction Movement (within all normal rules thereof) to the Raid Target Hex." Reaction movement normally is subject to pinning; if the ship in the target hex is pinned by the raider at the moment the raider arrives in the hex, then then the ship in the target hex cannot react "within the normal rules."
However, your ruling cleared up that assumption by stating "They are in no position to pin other units as their raid time on station is extremely limited and narrow (that is why only ONE unit can react to one raid ship -- there is simply not enough time for more than one unit to react to a raid ship). " Thus, the "normal reaction moement rules" with respect to pinning do not apply in this specific case. However, they *could* apply if, for example, the reaction was extended reaction and there were enemy units already in the intervening hex prior to raiding which would pin the reacting unit - and this is consistent with the prior ruling.
Note, I'm not questioning or appealing the ruling (it actually was my understanding), just indicating where the source of confusion came from with the original question.