---

Quote:

(324.15) PURSUIT: Echelon formations cannot be used by a Battle Force conducting a pursuit. They can be used by a Battle Force being pursued.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 29, 2012 - 11:43 am: Edit

An engineer regiment can be used in conjunction with a Tug or 2xLTT to reduce the cost of the overall two-step upgrade by 5 EPs. The Tug or LTTs are actually performing the base upgrade and the ENG is assisting in this case.

FEDS SENDS

By Andrew Bruno (Admeeral) on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 12:01 am: Edit

Question (non-specific): When is the earliest Klingon Tug/Eng can begin upgrading BATS 1009 to a SB?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 12:47 am: Edit

Andrew,

The Klingon Northern and Northern Reserve Fleet activate on T2. The ENG isn't avaiable until the Home Fleet releases on T3A if the Hydrans enter Klingon territory or T4 if they don't.

The earlist the Klingon Tug/ENG combo could be used would be T5 since the ENG wouldn't be able to move to 1009 until T4C.

Ryan

A Tug alone could move to 1009 on T2C and begin upgrade on T3C.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 02:19 am: Edit

What Ryan meant to say is: "See (321.11)..."

FEDS

By Andrew Bruno (Admeeral) on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 02:31 am: Edit

Thanks Ryan.
Gads. We've been playing the SO ship adds (PTR, D7N, D5N, ENG, FHL, F5T as well as the 2 Survey cruisers) as a kind of GHQ force that was available T1...oops!
I actually threw the question out there more with regards to 1009 possibly being in an inactive fleet area (Home) and its possible upgrade restrictions. Dang.

By Andrew Bruno (Admeeral) on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 02:44 am: Edit

Hiya Chuck!
Did you mean (541.11)? Activation on first turn "at war"? I wasn't doin that either. I was giving it to Klinks on set up (- also wrong).
Thanks so much for so many Q&A queries being answered so fast!

Striking while the iron is hot- here's a silly question:
How many FFF do empires receive on T1? 6 or 12?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 03:19 am: Edit

FFFs: It depends -- see OOBs.

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 04:56 am: Edit

I think he means do empires receive their full years fighters on turn 1, or half, or none. I was kinda curious myself and kinda assumed a half years since the race activation was in fall.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 06:56 am: Edit

If the start of a scenario is on a fall turn, i.e. GW Fall of Y168 then an empire at war (Lyarns, Kzintis, and Klingons) receive 1/2 fo the there yearly Free Fighter Factors under (442.63) when playing with the expansions. Then on each spreing turn Turn 2, etc. they recieve their full fighter factor allotment according to the notes in their order of battle. See (431.744), and (442.6). Also see the Order of Battle (7xx.0) for each respective empire and the number of fighter factor they receive.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 08:01 am: Edit

Q541.11 Is the Klingon ENG considered to be a part of the Klingon Home Fleet or is treated in a manner similar to new construction or mothballed activation?

Rules and Rulings for consideration:

---

Quote:

(541.11) Initial: All races can activate one engineer regiment (for free) on the first turn they are actually “at war” (not just on a wartime economy). All engineer regiments are created or activated in the capital hex.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 12:19 pm: Edit

Rule (541.11) applies in all cases unless the scenario is a continuing action scenario (such as Gail Force or Winds of Fire) where the MMG was activated prior to the scenario and assigned to a given fleet.

FEDS SENDS

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 04:36 pm: Edit

Was F&E Mini-Scenario 1101.0 Firewall from Module P3 ever published somewhere else?

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Tuesday, January 01, 2013 - 06:16 am: Edit

Question:

(515.26) Tugs with carrier pods [mission (509.1B] or SCS pods [mission (509.1Q] do not require escorts, but can be escorted.

(515.261) Unescorted carrier tugs count as two ships for command rating purposes.

The first rule says it doesn't require escorts, then the 2nd rule says that it counts as two ships meaning it does require escorts. So what is the rule? If a tug with carrier pods does require at least one escort then the wording in (509.1) should be changed a bit, as it implies that tugs could be single ship carriers.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Tuesday, January 01, 2013 - 07:34 am: Edit

Question:

(433.19) Multiple Conversions: ... A "major" conversion (at the capital starbase) can make up to three conversions so long as the total cost is less then 5 economic points.

(450.52) The capital starbase (433.12) or "major conversion facility" (450.12) can make 2 or three conversions in a single turn as long as the total cost of those conversions is 5 EPs or less.

Just looking for clarification. The first rule is in 2k10 and the second rule is in PO.

Does this mean:

1 - If using only 2k10, you can only use 4 EPs worth of conversions?

2 - that 2k10 meant 5 EPs or LESS instead of less than 5 EPs?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, January 01, 2013 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Q523.115 (523.115) States that conversions of allowed regular warships to X-ships requires the conversion take place at a SBX. The conversion costs for the majority, if not all such eligible conversions, are more than 3 points. Is the conversion of a standard ship to an X-ship considered to be a major or minor conversion for the purposes where any such conversion be done? Each empire obviously has one SBX in their capital hex at the time of X-Ship introduction under (523.413) which could be used for a major conversion of any type. Obviously with only 1 SBX only one ship a turn can be converted to an X-ship. The question arises from the upgrading of an existing base to a second or later SBX.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, January 01, 2013 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Pete,

On your carrier tug question, remember that a carrier tug that needs no escort could then be put in the formation slot, with the second slot being the fighters alongside. Require at least one escort, and you no longer can use the formation slot.

Your question also brings up another question.

FEAR,

A carrier tug counts as two ships (515.261), which I presume is because of the squadron of fighters the tug brings to the fight. If the tug had lost the fighters in a previous round, and chose to fight on anyway, does it now count only as one ship on the line?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, January 01, 2013 - 07:04 pm: Edit

Turtle:

See (523.424) and ask me again if that doesn't answer your question.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Tuesday, January 01, 2013 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Kevin,

I don't think that makes sense. The fighters don't count as a ship against command limits if their carrier is in the battle with them. There's nothing in this rule that indicates that there is an exception for tugs with carrier pods.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, January 01, 2013 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Chuck, question answered, I just couldn't find it earlier when I was looking for that.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, January 02, 2013 - 10:08 am: Edit

Pete,

I think the exception was created specifically for tugs on this issue. Rule 515.261 is that very exception - the carrier tug without fighters needs to use a command slot for the fighters separate from the tug itself.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Wednesday, January 02, 2013 - 10:28 am: Edit

Kevin,

Then that exception (if it exists, which I don't think it does) would need to be stated explicitly.

And it still doesn't make sense. The rule says "unescorted" carrier tugs. Meaning that if escorted it doesn't count?

What the rules seems to say (at least as I read it) is that a carrier tug needs an escort - at least one, and that contradicts the previous statement that it doesn't need to be escorted. But I'll wait for official response to put me in my place on this one.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, January 02, 2013 - 03:43 pm: Edit

FEAR:

Please write-up and e-mail me a quandary report for my review as the single-ship carrier tug issue requires designer intent to be resolved; I see a contradiction within these rules.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, January 02, 2013 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Pete,

"The rule says "unescorted" carrier tugs. Meaning that if escorted it doesn't count?"

Correct. If you escort it, you get the fighters on the line for free, as part of the carrier 'group'. If you do not escort it, you put the fighters in a slot alongside the tug.

That was at least my understanding at the time. If something else was intended... I would be very surprised.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Wednesday, January 02, 2013 - 05:27 pm: Edit

Kevin,

Again, that makes no sense. There is no rule in the book that indicates what you are saying. IF that was the intent, then it needs to be in the book, but frankly that's such a crazy exception that I don't think it's worth the bother. Either it should be a single ship carrier that can have escorts (like the SUP, B-10 or CVL), or it should require an escort group based on what type of carrier it is classified as. This idea of fighters counting for this one instance under one circumstance has no basis in any of the rules.

Mind you, if what you are describing is actually Steve's intent, I'm okay with it being clarified in that regard. But I don't see how you can point to a rule that no one but you seems to know exists.

Both Chuck and Thomas are seeing the same contradiction I am. So, let's let the FEAR and FEDS work this one out.