| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 - 12:27 pm: Edit |
We have enough challenges by have only one SIT per empire; two per empire would add more clutter and I really don't want maintain two different SITs.
As to future product listings, I can see a footnote added to the SITS saying TO/DO/CW are future products.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 - 05:40 pm: Edit |
THIS IS NOT A FEDS RULING.
FEDS REQUESTS FEAR ASSISTANCE.
Ref: Federation NVH/NVA, NHV/NHA, HDWH usage (F-111 and A-20 "PFT" Carriers).
Comment and critique this proposed ruling based upon (314.13), (532.22), and (527.21):
Starting in Y180, the Federation may operate its heavy fighter carriers (includes NVH/NVA, NHV/NHA & HDWH) as escorted medium carriers or as unescorted single-ship carriers (or some of each). Note that Federation heavy fighter carriers (unlike other carriers capable of functioning in either mode) which is designated at the start of the Combat Phase (Y180 or later) as having escorts could not be converted to a single-ship carrier during that same Combat Phase.
| By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 - 06:32 pm: Edit |
I'd be more than happy to maintain the SITs. I have lots of time, am awesome with excel, and have an uncanny attention to detail and consistency. I could write the SITs so they could easily handle all sorts of formats (one by date, one by compot, one by availability, etc, etc). I could also do things like split out all the common ships to a separate SIT. And I could generate all of those, for every race, in mere minutes.
Computers are *awesome* for data, and I'm *awesome* with computers ;)
| By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 - 06:53 pm: Edit |
Eric, it's not the maintainance of the SITs, it's the official (SVC's approval) seal that can't be delgated anywhere else...
| By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 - 10:11 pm: Edit |
Official approval is needed for obvious typos, adding ships from recent captain's logs???
I can sorta understand the logic behind, say, changing the cost of a ship conversion by 1 EP, but nobody has the power to keep these updated except SVC, and he's busy with other projects so they essentially *don't* get updated?
That seems to make about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine as there are people who will work for free and help him spend more time designing games or running a company.
Granted, they aren't horribly wrong or broken, but they aren't exactly complete either 
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 07:21 am: Edit |
Deleted by Author
| By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 11:12 am: Edit |
Eric, yes, this is a product that SVC wants to keep his fingers in. It is, in many ways, far harder to proofread the data than it is to enter it.
In addition, we would have to make sure that your Excel is compatible with his Excel so that if for some reason you needed to drop the project (RL is always more important than gaming), SVC could resume the work.
I should be able to free up a lot of his time once I am permanently in Amarillo.
| By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 11:44 am: Edit |
Well glad to hear it!
If excel compatibility is a problem... well, I offered a while back to make a website only accessible to him and whoever he wanted, that could allow easy changes and print out PDFs, essentially identical to the PDFs online now, or even output to excel, but it was declined. Heck, I can give him an app (2X) that'll work on any platform (even his phone or apple stuff) that would let him remote into a full blown windows 7/8/2008/2012 computer with Office and an excel that will not blow up on him.
I do know its harder to proofread than to enter it, but I also know computers make stuff like this MUCH easier if configured properly.
I have no kids, just a wife, and my career and hobbies revolve around computers. If for some reason I'm unable to do stuff, its, well, because I'm dead, in which case I can have my wife send my computer to you if that is an issue (I'm in Dallas, Amarillo ain't too far!)
Excel is a great product, I use it all the time. However, with SITs, it is highly prone to user input error. A system that enforces consistency and prevents typos can negate many of the issues I've seen currently with the SITs.
With what I proposed SITs could:
- Created on demand
- Set a start/end year
- Optionally show common units, like bases, on their own SIT to avoid cluttering race specific SITs.
- Dynamically sit on a website when your building your fleet, and click a base hull, to see what it can become.
- Enter in any ship you have, and instantly see not only what it can be converted to, but full upgrade paths to convert to anything.
- Ability to search by data type, not just looking for a string in a PDF
- Show dynamic statistics like damage/repair cost ratio, EP per compot, etc.
- Make your own SIT kinda custom. Never produce the EFF? Hide it so you don't see it anymore. Add a popup when when the ship you've been waiting for is available?
- Tie it into the OB, so you can more easily create your production schedule.
- Find a bug? Mark it, it'll be submitted to an easily viewed website for SVC, or whoever, to say "approve" or "denied", and auto-fix the entry.
- Log changes, so you can see how that SB cost has changed over time.
- Add all the various criteria that simply doesn't fit on SITs now.
etc, etc, etc...
Excel is great, but it simply can't do all that stuff, and surely not when used to save as PDF.
Not only will SVC not have to open up his flaky excel to make changes, but he can delegate control to others, so he can spend his time on running his company, and designing new stuff.
Its just hard for me to understand how technology can be so avoided in a SciFi game 
| By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 12:51 pm: Edit |
Can a reserve fleet's destination be an empty hex, if that hex opens supply to units that are cut off?
Also, if a reserve fleet is moving from off-map, can it pick the off-map hex it exits from or must it always choose the closest one to its destination hex?
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 01:51 pm: Edit |
Eric:
That's all covered under (203.7) RESERVE MOVEMENT.
| By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 02:23 pm: Edit |
Nope, sorry, they aren't. 207.24 is all that concerns coming back on map, and nothing whatsoever about reserve fleets picking a hex that may be further from its destination hex.
And nothing whatsoever about an empty hex being a reserve target hex.
I've searched the rules and Q&A pretty exhaustively for both situations.
And another situation. If a carrier group is in a reserve fleet, and it must move through a hex with a single ship, can it leave the carrier behind as the escorts continue? The carrier may have 6+ fighters, and be 2 pinning-factors, but still just 1 "ship".
| By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 02:33 pm: Edit |
(203.731) - The moving Reserve Fleet could have as its objective a hex which is not a Battle Hex, but which contains enemy units which are blocking a supply path to friendly units in combat, which otherwise would be out of supply during the ensuring Combat Phase.
| By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 02:36 pm: Edit |
(203.73) - Objective: The moving Reserve Fleet must have as it's objective a specific Battle Hex (301.2), involving friendly or allied forces in which it will end its movement, and it must move to that hex by the shortest legal path (within other restrictions; if more than one such path is available the owning player may select any of them).
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 02:45 pm: Edit |
These statements are incorrect.
Quote:Nope, sorry, they aren't. 207.24 is all that concerns coming back on map, and nothing whatsoever about reserve fleets picking a hex that may be further from its destination hex.
And nothing whatsoever about an empty hex being a reserve target hex.
| By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 04:02 pm: Edit |
203.731. Doesn't address the destination of a reserve fleet being a hex that opens supply that does NOT have enemy units within it. Sure, we can assume, but assumptions can be biased and incorrect.
203.73. Shortest path, ok, but:
(207.25) PROCEDURE FOR RETURNING: Units leave an offmap area by entering a hex adjacent to the area and paying one Movement Point for the hex entered.
Which seems to indicate an off-map reserve fleet can enter the map wherever they want, and THEN must abide by the rules forcing them to use the shortest route possible.
If I had to assume, I'd assume the off-map fleet must pick the shortest route, but I can't be confident in that *assumption*.
If I had to assume, I'd assume that a hex that opens supply, even without enemies, could be the target of a reserve fleet. As opening supply is a very specific purpose of reserve fleets.
So while ya'll may see these as obvious assumptions, I posted here because it wasn't clear to me at all, and the book not saying something isn't the same as it excluding it.
This game is *Far* too complex and in most cases exhaustively detailed, to make assumptions on rule interpretations.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 04:46 pm: Edit |
Treat the off-map as hex #0 toward your objective hex #X.
The reserve fleet must move to the objective hex by the shortest legal path (within other restrictions; if more than one such path is available the owning player may select any of them).
For example:
The Klingons are attacking the Kzinti home world. A Kzinti off-map reserve fleet wants to support the defense at the capital. Its ONLY path can be on to the capital (ending its movement after moving just ONE hex). The reserve fleet cannot move on to the map and then move additional hexes to the capital as this is NOT the shortest path.
This is a specific rule and trumps any general rule.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 04:46 pm: Edit |
A guiding principle of SFU games is that to DO something you must have an enabling rule. 203.731 only enables you to move to a hex which contains an enemy unit. There is no enabling rule that allows you to send a reserve fleet to an empty hex. Therefore, this action is impossible under the current rule set. Unless, of course, I'm missing something and this enabling rule does exist.
Quote:203.731. Doesn't address the destination of a reserve fleet being a hex that opens supply that does NOT have enemy units within it. Sure, we can assume, but assumptions can be biased and incorrect.
This assertion is the one making the assumption (specifically the idea that you must enter and then abide by the reserve movment rules - this sequence is what is assumed). I see nothing in the rules that provides for this idea. Given that 203.74 requries the "best path" and makes no proviso for offmap movement, we can only conclude that you may pick any legal path from the offmap that satisfies the best path rules. Thus, that "first on-map hex" you refer to must be selected taking 203.74 into account. Accordingly, when moving a reserve fleet from the offmap it is *less* likely you will be able to designate a destination hex that will allow you to move through enemy units.
Quote:(207.25) PROCEDURE FOR RETURNING: Units leave an offmap area by entering a hex adjacent to the area and paying one Movement Point for the hex entered.
Which seems to indicate an off-map reserve fleet can enter the map wherever they want, and THEN must abide by the rules forcing them to use the shortest route possible.
If I had to assume, I'd assume the off-map fleet must pick the shortest route, but I can't be confident in that *assumption*.
If I had to assume, I'd assume that a hex that opens supply, even without enemies, could be the target of a reserve fleet. As opening supply is a very specific purpose of reserve fleets.
So while ya'll may see these as obvious assumptions, I posted here because it wasn't clear to me at all, and the book not saying something isn't the same as it excluding something specifically.
| By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 05:01 pm: Edit |
Ok, best path makes it make more sense, thanks!
And what about leaving a single carrier with 6+ fighters in a reserve fleet to pin a single frigate, can that be done?
I had a few questions from the 12th too:
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?
Thanks for taking the time to answer!
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 05:06 pm: Edit |
Question posed by Eric Smith, above, among his other questions. I ask it as a single question here, with slightly different wording. I also have a follow up related to fast ships.
Q203.7421 and 203.7422: Can a carrier carrying 6 fighters be left behind during reserve movement against a single enemy ship?
Situation: A player has a reserve fleet composed of a carrier carrying 6 fighters and a number of single ships. The player designates a legal battle hex as the destination of the reserve fleet. A lone normal FF stands between the best path of the reserve fleet and the legal target hex, within the meaning of 203.741. Per 203.7421 the player must leave behind the *minimum* number of "ships" to avoid being pinned. This minimum is 1. However, per 203.7422 carriers and PFTs cannot leave their fighters behind, but if the carrier is left behind its fighters counts for purposes of counter-pinning.
The player asserts that the carrier is a single "ship" within the meaning of 203.7421, and thus asserts the carrier may be left behind to counter the FF, even though the carrier is 2 ship equivalents. (Fighters normally are not "ships" in F&E). Opponent asserts that the carrier would count for 2 ship equivalents under 203.7422, and thus does not satisfy the minimum number of "ships" to avoid being pinned under 203.7421, and that effectively - solely for purposes of 203.7422 - fighters *do* count as "ships" under 203.7421. Opponent also points out that if a CV were a "ship" only, then the CV and its 6 fighters could not be left behind to cover 2 FFs, because 203.7421 says that *ships* must be left behind. However, 203.7422 appears to provide for the opposite result; namely, that a CV with 6 fighters may be left behind to pin two FFs. By negative inference, "fighters" must be "ships" for purposes of rule 203.7421, and accordingly a CV with 6 fighters could never be left behind to pin a single normal FF so long as the reserve fleet also contained single ships.
Official answer respectfully requested.
Q203.7421 Follow Up: Same facts, but now assume that instead of a carrier with 6 fighters a fast ship is present in the reserve and the player with the reserve fleet wants to leave the fast ship to pin the FF. A fast ship is a single "ship" but it counts for 2 ship equivalents. Would 203.7421 require the player with the reserve fleet to leave behind a non-fast ship, or may the player leave the fast ship behind?
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 06:11 pm: Edit |
Rule Structure
(203.742) sets the SPECIFIC definition of "ships" for this rule section by "(counting fighter or PF equivalents)"; any sub-section of that parent rule carries down to the following subordinate rules sections.
Bottomline: You can't leave the CV with its six fighter factors to pin the enemy frigate, but you can leave a escort under the new F&E2KX rules.
(FEAR may have to research the fast ship question as I seem to recall a ruling on this already.)
| By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 06:17 pm: Edit |
Great, thanks for prompt the answer!
Still doesn't make sense to me (especially the way written), but I'll just add it to the other couple of rules in my "rules that defy logic" category and move on
Blockade answers now?
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 06:39 pm: Edit |
The rule and the ruling make perfect sense.
| By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Friday, December 21, 2012 - 10:00 am: Edit |
Did I miss a ruling about the GVX in a CVBG?
Also, what about the Romulans paying for drones for Klingon adopted ships? Probably no-go but I haven't seen an answer yet.
| By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Friday, December 21, 2012 - 12:58 pm: Edit |
So, can you use strategic movement to place a colony?
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, December 21, 2012 - 03:01 pm: Edit |
Pete:
No, you would have to use strat movement of a previous turn to arrive at an eligible colony hex then, by rule (446.1) during the operational movement phase the first payment of colonial development occurs.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |