Ted is correct. See (310.51) provided that such a situation occurs in the standard combat phase and not the raid phase of the Sequence of Play.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, December 10, 2012 - 08:20 pm: Edit

FEAR, this probably more of "Could you give me an exmaple" than a question.

Q302.63 How does Annahilation (302.63) work with units in the echelon formation if all units in the battle force are destroyed, but points still exist in an amount high enough to cripple or kill a given ship in the echelon such as a carrier escort to a carrier feeding it's fighters forward, or a drone ship providing drone bombardment?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - 12:14 am: Edit

---

Quote:

(302.60) PROCEDURE: ...drone ships (309.0) conducting bombardment and carriers (501.4) or PFTs (502.41) sending their attrition units to the Battle Force could never be given up as voluntary damage but could be attacked by Directed Damage (302.563).

---

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 12:02 am: Edit

So according to the turn sequence the phasing player resolves directed damage, THEN the non-phasing player.

After that the phasing player resolves the rest of his damage. Then the non-phasing player.

As the directed damage is "resolved" before standard damage, and the phasing player directed damage "resolved" before directed damage by the non-phasing player...

Does that mean that the phasing player could kill a mauler on the line before it had a chance to use its ability, as it would not exist in the non-phasing players turn?

I couldn't find anything saying damage was completely simultaneous, though in games like this I could assume it would be that way. However, if Maulers are allowed on the line and their effects invulnerable to being directed on, it can really degrade the ability of the phasing player to be aggressive during their turn as a single D6M can easily double the directed firepower of a 40 point fleet.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 02:27 am: Edit

---

Quote:

(302.44) ...units damaged or destroyed in a round still count toward scoring damage on enemy units in that round.

---

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Can a blockade runner that decides to end its turn in the hex it targeted, be intercepted as any normal raid on a particular hex (nearby ships reacting on it, including police ships)?

On the same note, just for clarification I think, does that blockade runner then block supply and other paths for the rest of the turn? Seems kinda silly to think a blockade runner can block supply for a whole fleet in friendly space, and open to some serious hammering for newly cut-off fleets on the offense.

And finally, what determines "friendly hex" when it comes to a blockade runner targets? Surely the same race, but what if it is conquered territory?

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 11:57 pm: Edit

Q: (410.55) and (509.1-U)
Some Klingon drone ships have been cut off in Romulan space.
If the Romulans adopt them as homeless ships (410.5) can the Romulans then pay to supply their own tugs with drones per (509-U) and use those drones to supply the adopted drone ships to do drone bombardment--at least for as long as the purchased drones last?

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 05:29 pm: Edit

F&E2K from e23 states that the fighter rules in CL36 are "more updated" than the rules in F&E2K.

How do I know what rules in Captain's Logs should replace those in F&E2K and the addons, and which are still purely playtest?

Also, on the same lines, what about the various ships? A Fed DDF or SCQ would be fun, but I don't know what ships in the CLs are legal for regular F&E use and which are totally playtest. I try to use the SITs, but many of those haven't been updated since the last few CLs came out (I'd be happy to volunteer my considerable free time to keeping those updated and consistent, with near constant updates if nobody has the time to do so)

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 06:04 pm: Edit

The fighter rules in CL36 only apply to heavy fighters.
They modify the PF and Fighter rules to some extent.
However, there are two versions of the heavy fighter rules.
One in Fighter Ops and one in Advanced Ops.
Those in CL36 corrected issues between those two rules.
A PDF copy may be found in the player resources link. I don't know the link and am on my phone not pc at this time.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Link is at http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/cl36j-530.pdf

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 06:12 pm: Edit

I had CL36, the issue wasn't this particular rule, but what *other* rules are in CL's that should be considered officially part of the current F&E ruleset (and would be incorporated in the much hyped "warbook")?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 08:15 pm: Edit

only the Q&A and rulings are official. everything else is playtest material until published in an expansion.

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 11:20 pm: Edit

Well F&E2K specifically states that CL36 rules are more updated. The ESSC rules in CL35 I think said SVC wanted these to replace F&E rules.

So there is obvious precedent to having CL rules replace or update official published rules. ESSC has since been reprinted in F&E2K.

So my question was what OTHER rules from CLs are treated in such a manner. The CL's don't always advertise that.

Also, and what about ships, are all the new ships that do NOT have any rules with them "official" and could be used in campaigns and stuff. I understand some are conjectural and those are, well, conjectural, but as each CL comes out there are new official *non* conjectural ships to the universe, and they usually have F&E data with them.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, December 14, 2012 - 12:32 am: Edit

As to ships: Until ADB actually publishes a counter for a given unit it is not officially available for use unless all players agree to use the unit.

By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Friday, December 14, 2012 - 01:47 pm: Edit

is there an easy way to know which counters have been published, for those of us who play electronically (... and buy the rules individually)?

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, December 14, 2012 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Possibly the online SITs. They should show the product where published for each unit. Anything from CapLog or with a playtest rule number would be unofficial.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, December 14, 2012 - 06:32 pm: Edit

The online SITS do a good job.. there are some entries that are not official but you can tell because there is a column showing which product the ship was published in... so if its not in a published product you know!

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, December 14, 2012 - 10:13 pm: Edit

When you look at the online SITs, make sure you look at the product column and not the SFB Ref# column.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Monday, December 17, 2012 - 07:41 pm: Edit

(529.233) - Up to 3 ATPs or PTRs (total) can be added to a battle force outside of its command limits, but only if a planet is included in the battle and only be a defending side."

For purposes of this rule, could it also be used this way at a colony?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, December 17, 2012 - 11:20 pm: Edit

In the SIT what product is "TO" and "NO?".

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 - 12:20 am: Edit

TO = Tactical Operations
NO = Nebulous Operations

Neither is out yet, though you can probably find some threads under the new proposals/products thread group.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 - 04:11 am: Edit

---

Quote:

(529.233) - Up to 3 ATPs or PTRs (total) can be added to a battle force outside of its command limits, but only if a planet is included in the battle and only be a defending side.

For purposes of this rule, could it also be used this way at a colony?

---

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 - 07:40 am: Edit

RE>> TO = Tactical Operations
NO = Nebulous Operations

So shouldn't the SIT list these as future?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 - 07:41 am: Edit

Q518.22 Can the Federation NCV, NHA, NHV and NSV carry a SWAC shuttle (518.22). If so can they carry a heavy SWAC shuttle (317.31)?

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 - 10:54 am: Edit

The SITs list stuff as future when nobody knows what product it will be in I think. Once a product is known, like CW for Civil Wars (I *think* the next F&E product), it is placed there.

I could see them making it something like [TO] or {NO} instead of just TO/NO so it is easier to see that it is from an unreleased product.

I see your point though. Kinda like the new Fed DN to BB conversions. They are on a SIT that many of us use for our games, yet the rules are "playtest" like all the CL ships not yet out. I'd rather see them do 2 SITs, one "official" and one "playtest/beta", than have 1 SIT with empty data all over, question marks, blanks, and playtest stuff confusing the players.

Oh well, I'm not the SIT man (even though I probably spend more time with them than any other player ;)