FEDS Clarification

A GVX can only have eligible X-ship escorts; see (523.352). A GVX in a mixed tech CVBG would in effect share non-X-ship escorts and therefore could not be part of a mixed tech CVBG. In theory, a CVBG could be formed if all eligible units are X-Ships.

FEDS SENDS

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Friday, December 21, 2012 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Thank you Chuck. That news will help me tomorrow.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 22, 2012 - 05:33 am: Edit

Drone Bombardment Logistical Requirements:

---

Quote:

(309.32) COST: The owner must expend (during combat) 0.10 Economic Points per drone factor per Combat Round in which it is used in this role.

---

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Saturday, December 22, 2012 - 09:59 am: Edit

Not trying to be a pain Chuck.

Just for clarity, what I take (309.32) to mean is that only the owner can pay for drone bombardment. This would mean that expeditionary fleet drone ships could use drone bombardment because they are in supply to their *owner* and that adopted drone ships cannot because there is no supply to the *owner* of the ships. In other words the Romulans can't build drones to support adopted ships. Sound right?

I suppose the Klingons could theoretically blockade-run a tug full of drones into supply range of the adopted drone ships and the *owner* could supply drones for them in that way.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 22, 2012 - 01:02 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

(411.71) EFFECT: The ships of an expeditionary fleet are able to
use allied supply points to create a supply path back to the Supply
Grid of their own empire. For example, a Kzinti expeditionary
fleet operating in Romulan territory could draw supplies from its
own capital through the Federation Supply Grid.

(411.74) EXTRA COST: The owning empire of an expeditionary
fleet must pay 0.25 Economic Point per unit (ship, FRD, base)
per turn due to the higher transportation cost of supporting the
unit. This transportation surcharge is in addition to the normal
support costs, including repairs, bombardment drones, replacement
PFs, etc.
EXAMPLE: Calculate the support costs for the fleet (drone
factors, repairs, etc.) as if it were in home territory, then add 1/4
point per unit (not per service). A Kzinti expedition of three DFs
would pay 1.2 EPs for each volley of drones and then pay .75
EPs for the ships (no matter how many volleys they launched).

(309.31) SUPPLY: The drone bombardment ship must be in supply
to conduct drone bombardment, i.e., it must have a valid supply
path (411.0) or be supplied in some other manner, e.g., by a
tug carrying ammunition under (509.1) Mission U.
(FEDS: paying .25EP per DB ship allows supply to be drawn from your territory through the supply grid of your ally.)

(410.55) SPECIAL ABILITIES LOST: Drone ships (309.0) and
SFG‡ ships (312.0) cannot use their special abilities while being
supplied as homeless ships, although drone ships could be supplied
by tug (509.1U). Maulers (308.4) and scouts can use their
special abilities.

(509.1-U) Drone Supply Tug‡: Each tug can carry 24 points
of drone bombardment ammunition (LTTs can carry twelve points,
while theater transports can carry six points). This allows drone
bombardment ships to conduct a bombardment mission without
a supply path.The tug can be assigned this mission (537.6) during
the Phasing Player Turn at the moment it begins Operational
Movement or Strategic Movement, or is placed in a Reserve Fleet,
or as part of the Final Activity Phase (10C). The Romulan KRT,
SPH, and FE can perform this mission, but as no Romulan ships
have drones, they could only do so as part of an allied force. The
drones must be paid for at the time that the mission is assigned.

---

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Saturday, December 22, 2012 - 04:02 pm: Edit

Got it Chuck.

Expeditionary Fleet=no problem the Klingons pay for drones normally since they've paid to establish supply this turn using Romulan nodes to connect to the Klingon main grid.

Adopted Ships=Romulans *cannot* pay to produce drones, but Klingons could pay to put drones on Romulan or Klingon tugs, which could then supply the number of drones carried for use by adopted Klingon drone ships. Got it.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 22, 2012 - 04:19 pm: Edit

I think I said that. The adopting empire CANNOT pay for DB of another empire.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - 09:03 pm: Edit

Q525.21 Can the HDW be produced at a SB (431.52) or MSY-DW yard (450.1) in place of the standard DW?

Rule for consideration: (442.53) DW PRODUCTION: Effective Y178, Starbases gain the ability to produce one DW instead of one FF (431.52) each turn. Commando and escort variants can be produced as substitutions, and one scout variant per turn could be produced as a substitution under the (432.41) limit.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - 10:41 pm: Edit

HDWs can only be produced at SBs via the Y178+ War Destroyer construction rule (442.53) AND using any available conversion capacity of that SB. HDWs are not on the list of approved starbase DW substitutions.

FEDS SENDS

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, December 26, 2012 - 11:16 pm: Edit

So I have a MON in a hex with a planet, which also contains a TG upgrading a MB. According to 519.22 the MON is treated as a base in regards to the approach of the planet. That being the case, I have two "bases" at the planet, the MB being upgraded, and the MON.

Can the MON be the "focus" of the attack, and the TG upgrading the MB the "excluded" base?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 01:11 am: Edit

Short informal answer - 'no' in this case. What you have is two co-located base-like units at the same base 'site'. The answers get more challenging when we start to talk about multiple fixed bases at the same co-located position.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 01:13 am: Edit

deleted by author

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 10:50 am: Edit

Q433.0 The ISC can convert a CVS/CV to a BCV according to the SIT. Does such a conversion under (433.0) cost the ISC an allowed carrier build? There is a ruling that any increase in fighter factors means that the conversion counts against an empire's allowed carrier builds in that turn. (I just can't find the ruling at the moment). In this case there is no increase in fighter factors, just in overall compot and command rating from the CV/CVS to the BCV.or the

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 11:56 am: Edit

From CL26:

---

Quote:

Q2606: Building a carrier counts against the carrier limits. Converting a non-carrier to a carrier counts against the carrier limits. Does converting a carrier into a different kind of carrier count against the carrier limits?

A: We had to go back to SVC on this one since nobody knew why he inserted the rule that a Kzinti CVL converted to a CV counts as a carrier build. He intended that to be a general rule, so any conversion of a carrier to another kind of carrier counts if the ship gains fighter factors in the deal. A Federation NVL being upgraded to an NVS wouldn’t count against the limit. A carrier converted into a scout-carrier counts against the scout limit, but in a specific exception doesn’t count against the carrier limit even though it gains two fighter factors. A carrier converted into an SCS counts against the SCS limit. A carrier converted into a CVA counts against the CVA limit.

---

---

Quote:

Upgrading Carrier Tugs: Does upgrading a Klingon CVT to a CVT+ (i.e., from 5 fighter factors to 6) count against the carrier limit? Some think it does (see CL26), but others think it does not (since it is the pods being upgraded, not the ship) and upgrading other VP2_s to VP3s doesn’t count against the limit. It is noted that the pods on the CVTs are hard welded and no longer separate units. The CL26 ruling lists some exceptions (not including the Klingon CVT) but it could be argued that no Klingon would ever give up a carrier conversion to add one fighter factor to his CVTs, and this argument must finally win the day. So, this upgrade does not count against the carrier limit.

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Thanks Chuck. It would be the same as the Feds upgrading their terrible NVL to much better NVS then. A good way to get cheap firepower.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, December 28, 2012 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Q(320.511). For purposes of determining a valid blockade run destination hex, what constitutes a "friendly" hex and what constitutes a "neutral" hex - exactly?

-For example, say the Lyran player has a ship adjacent hex 1003 and the Kzinti have no adajecent ships. Is the hex "friendly" because it is in original Zin space, or is it not "friendly" because it's effectively under control of the Lyran player.

-Change the facts. What if a Zin ship is adjacent hex 1003? Does 1003 become "friendly" as a result, or is it not "friendly" because an enemy ship is next to the hex?

-Follow ups: Does it make a difference if said adjacent Zin ship is also in province 1003, or if the adjacent Zin ship is in, say, one of adjacent provinces 1002 or 1003?

-Change the facts. What if province 1003 is annexed and no Lyran units are in the province?

-Follow up: Is a hex a "friendly" hex if the hex is in original territory and said hex is also "in supply"?

-For a "neutral hex", does that apply to neutral powers only - or does it apply to neutral zone hexes.

-If it applies to netural zone hexes, does it apply to neutral zone hexes *claimed* by the enemy?

-What if the neutral zone hex is annexed?

Rulings and clarifications respectfully requested; soon, if possible. Thank you.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, December 28, 2012 - 01:09 pm: Edit

Q(320.511) further follow up. Can the one-way blockade run of a ship to a "friendly" hex open up the way for a second one-way blockade run of a ship to what is now a "friendly" hex created by the first one way blockade runner?

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Friday, December 28, 2012 - 02:28 pm: Edit

This could all be fix by restricting blockade runs to a target hex that either has friendly forces, or is neutral, which by all the reading seems to be the only purpose for them anyway.... not being used to cut enemy supply lines. If they can be used offensively to cut, or open, supply lines, they can quickly become more important than any other raid both offensively and defensively.

Of course, that is just of an opinion in the lack of anything contradictory.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, December 28, 2012 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Q(320.511) further follow up. Does a *captured* enemy province count as "friendly" for purpose of blockade running? Annexed?

-Still further follow up: If an originally owned province is merely "disrupted," are the remaining empty or friendly-occupied hexes in that province "friendly"?


As for Eric's suggestion, sure. I don't care what the ruling is - I just want to clarify what does "friendly" and "neutral" mean. As you can see from all the scenarios I've proposed you can argue alot about what "friendly" means.


Definition for further consideration for this ruling. The "definitions" section of the rules defines "friendly" as "FRIENDLY: This refers to a unit or hex which is owned by forces of the same empire or an allied empire."


If "ownership" is the issue, then I would say a captured original province is NOT "friendly". I question whether a disrupted province is "friendly" as it is not wholly owned or unowned - it is "disrupted." I would say an annexed enemy province IS "friendly" as it is owned. I would say a *claimed* enemy netural hex is NOT friendly because it is not "owned" and it is not "netural," being claimed by the enemy.

A *captured* enemy province may or may not be considered *owned* and able to blockade runned-to. Is it? Certainly an *annexed* enemy province is *owned* and thus could be blockade runned-to.

Rulings still needed, though.


edit F&E definitions do not define the word "owned" or when a hex is considered "owned" (at least that I can find). Suggest they should for the warbook.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, December 28, 2012 - 05:40 pm: Edit

As FEAR is involved in the game this question has arisen in, a FEDS review is requested. The question boils down to this, can a pinned group of ships where an additional number of ships has moved on from after the pinning still be considered a sub-stack that still has potential movement and thus, generate another reaction into that hex from ships that did not react initially?
Rule references associated with this question are all of (203.5) and arguments are:
A. (203.51) says that pinned ships cannot resume moving if another stack later moves in - but that makes sense as you have to complete a stack's movement before you can start another stack. Thus, we are not sure if it really implies that the pinned ships are stopped. If they are stopped by the very act of pinning, then there really is not "residual movement" of pinned ships to react to.
B. When you leave a fleet behind to satisfy pinning, said pinned fleet is still moving and that when it officially stops it creates additional reaction opportunities (even though the pinned fleet can't move out of the hex it hasn't been declared to have stopped yet). That can matter when you are not fully pinned, so that in this instance you can decide whether to stop the pinned fleet first or move then stop the continuing fleet first. That decision can affect reactions considerably.

Emails on the discussion have been forwarded to FEDS for background information as FEAR found it was better leave them in their author's tone and context for better review.

No need to post anything more here as I believe the discussion as been very comprehensive and very polite. Mike Parker, Ted Fay, Robert Padilla, and Tim Losberg; I thank you for your assistance in covering the issue.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 29, 2012 - 01:26 am: Edit

FEDS RULING:

When units are pinned they are FORCED to stop ALL operational movement because the enemy took an action to stop any further movement of the pinned units; there is nothing to decide here as the enemy has done it for you. The only decision is to decide what ships are left behind to satisfy the pinning requirement.

"Pinned" means: to hold, press, hold fast, hold down; restrain, pinion, immobilize.

Once a unit is pinned it is no longer capable of using operational movement; any remaining operational movement pulses are lost for the pinned unit.

By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Saturday, December 29, 2012 - 02:26 am: Edit

what if you leave more than the minimum number of SEs when leaving the hex? it's all one stack, but not every ship is actually "immobilized" in the sense you cite.

By Michael Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Saturday, December 29, 2012 - 03:11 am: Edit

Then you would have a sub-stack that has not necessarily completed its movement until you declare that it has.

If defending units used extended reaction to react to phasing units that were pinned as a result of other defending units regular reaction, or by the phasing units moving on top of defending units resulting in those phasing units being pinned, then the pinned units could be reacted into after the sub-stack that is still moving has completed its movement, even though the pinned units have no movement points remaining.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, December 29, 2012 - 07:30 am: Edit

Q324.0 Can the ISC use the echelon formation (324.0) in a pursuit battle (307.0) if it meets all the requirements of (324.1) and (307.2) as the pursuer or (307.3) as the pursued as appropriate to the actual situation?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, December 29, 2012 - 08:41 am: Edit

Q541.33D Can a Tug or LTT in conjuction with an Engineer upgrade a base as a 2 Steup upgrade, i.e. BATS to SB? 2 LTTs can upgrade a BATS to SB under (509.1-J2) and (516.21-J).