DELETED - Personal attacks are not allowed. If you have an issue with someone on the BBS send an email to Webmom. Keep it off the board. - FEAR

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, January 02, 2013 - 09:15 pm: Edit

Kevin, the fighters do not take up the missing command slot. The fighters are included with their carrier without taking a command slot. See (302.332) and (302.334). The missing escort of a group under (515.13), (515.2) and (515.35) does eat a command slot under (302.33).

For comparison the Battleships and Romulan SUP are single ship carriers. These ships do not require escorts under (515.0), but could be given escorts if desired. Tugs with carrier pods (509.1-B) and (515.26) do not have to be escorted but can be escorted.

The conflict follows in (515.261) Unescorted carrier tugs count as two ships for command rating purposes.

I see Pete's question as a legitmate question because 2 rules, in this case consecutive rules, conflict with each other.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, January 02, 2013 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Let's cut comments on single ship carrier tugs in this topic as FEAR is working the issue.

FEDS

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, January 02, 2013 - 11:20 pm: Edit

Q515.26 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.

A515.26 This was something that was added in Fighter Ops. This allows tugs with carrier pods to be used in a battle force, but they count as a minimum of two ships, even though they are just a single ship. Yes, this does sound contradictory, but it works in this way per the following examples (these don’t include the exceptions on certain carriers in (515.2)) :

Example 1: You have a Fleet with a tug with carrier pod(s) with six fighter factors and you want to escort it. You need to have two escorts per (515.22) at a minimum or it will be three command slots. If it is an unescorted tug it will be just two slots. So, it will be either three slots and protection or two slots with no extra protection.

Example 2: You have a pursuit force with a tug with carrier pod(s) with twelve fighter factors and you want to use it in a pursuit battle. You can use it in unescorted mode and it will be two slots or you can escort it and have a minimum of three escorts per (515.21).

Example 3: You have a Fleet with a tug with a carrier pod with three fighters and want to use it in a battle force. It can have either one escort per (515.23) or go unescorted and still take up two slots either way.

It should be noted that in all cases the fighters on the tug do not take up command slots and this is never a way to count command slots when the carrier is present in the battle line. Fighters fed forward, in groups per (302.35), do.

If you have escorts and lose all escorts in battle, per (515.26), the tug reverts back to the two command slot requirement as the escorts are permissive and not required under (515.26).

Bottom line, Tugs with carrier pods are no longer single ship carriers in the 2010 ruleset.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, January 02, 2013 - 11:39 pm: Edit

"It should be noted that in all cases the fighters on the tug do not take up command slots and this is never a way to count command slots when the carrier is present in the battle line."

Ok, so this means that an unescorted tug with a CV-pod, but no fighters, still takes up two slots on the battleline?

Can it be put in the formation slot (with or without fighters, though obviously no escorts)?

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, January 03, 2013 - 12:10 am: Edit

Q308.7 Can a Tug with carrier pods (515.26) use the formation bonus slot if it has no escorts, even if it takes up two command slots?

A308.7 The two command slot requirement is not a ship requirement, and as such, a single unescorted tug is a single ship that qualifies under (308.7) as it is not a carrier with escort requirements per (515.26).

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, January 03, 2013 - 06:35 am: Edit

Q307.21 For the purposes of the die roll requirement to determine if pursuit is successful under (307.21). does the missing escort for a Tug with Carrier pods from the Q&A example 2 above mean that the total ship count is 5 requiring a 4 for successful pursuit, excluding modifiers for an X-ship (523.392) or fast ship (525.133). Carriers with missing escorts (307.22) count as the actual number of ships for the die roll in (307.21) but the required number of ships for formation of the pursuit force.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, January 03, 2013 - 07:09 am: Edit

Hi Mike,

Fixed. Thank you. - FEAR

That said, thanks for the ruling and clarification. I wasn't sure if it was an oversight when 2K10 got done - I've always wondered about the rule and checked it once I read 2K10. Thanks for the explanation.

And of course Happy New Year.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, January 03, 2013 - 07:22 am: Edit

Q308.12 If a Convoy (414.5) Military Convoy (526.152) or Engineer (541.21) is assigned escorts at the beginning of the combat phase under (105.IW) Phase 5 Step 3C does the loss of the first escort then cost the owning player a "blank" command slot for purposes of later rounds of combat?
(515.2) specifies the required number of escorts for carriers and the loss of any escort requires that the group count as the original number of ships against the command rating under (515.13).

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, January 03, 2013 - 07:26 am: Edit

Fixed

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, January 03, 2013 - 11:39 am: Edit

Revised Q308.12.

Q308.12 If a Convoy (414.5) Military Convoy (526.152) or Engineer (541.21) is assigned escorts at the beginning of the combat phase under (105.IW) Phase 5 Step 3C does the loss of the first, or any if more than one, escort is assigned then cost the owning player a "blank" command slot for purposes of later rounds of combat?
(515.2) specifies the required number of escorts for carriers and the loss of any escort requires that the group count as the original number of ships against the command rating under (515.13).
See also (515.43).

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, January 03, 2013 - 09:27 pm: Edit

Fixed, Thank you. - FEAR

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, January 03, 2013 - 09:44 pm: Edit

Stew:

Fixed, Thank you. - FEAR

Anyway, it's in the rules and explained very nicely by Mike, so there as well. Thank you, sir!

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Friday, January 04, 2013 - 11:58 am: Edit

So the Feds can place F14 +2 and F15 +2 counters on 3 SB/Planets.

What if a SB with F14+2 reacts its 12 fighters out of the hex. Does that mean that it can put up an 8 point independent squadron in 2 rounds of combat?

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, January 04, 2013 - 01:08 pm: Edit

Eric I don't give official answers but when you add the F14 and F15 chits to SB/Planets it means their are special squadrons of fighters there.

So in your example the SB has 14 fighter factors one standard of 6 factors and one of 8 factors. That F-14 squadron can be put up as an indep. squadron providing 8 combat factors for as many rounds as needed not just 2.

Again not official but it is how I have always seen these things to work!

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 04, 2013 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Q: What if a SB with F14+2 reacts its 12 fighters out of the hex. Does that mean that it can put up an 8 point independent squadron in 2 rounds of combat?

---

Quote:

(501.91) BASIC DEFINITION: Six (actually 6-8) fighter factors
are equivalent to one ship for purposes of various rules, e.g., for
pinning (203.54). Three (actually 3-5) fighter factors would be
equivalent to a half-ship (i.e., to a crippled ship); see (203.54).
Exceptions: There are many exceptions, mostly involving the
Federation. Federation F-111s, F-15s, F-14s, A-10s, and A-20s,
and all heavy fighters and megafighters, come in squadrons which
have more than six factors, and each of those squadrons is one
ship equivalent for purposes of pinning and for command purposes.
Thus, one squadron (eight factors of F-15s and F-14s or
F-101s, ten factors of A-20s, nine factors of F-111s, or seven
factors of A-10s) are one ship equivalent and (if independent)
take up one command slot. Each such squadron might (if
understrength) count as only a half of a ship equivalent.

AND

(501.61) BETWEEN ROUNDS: Ships and bases of the same
empire in the same hex can transfer fighters between each other
between Combat Rounds as long as the receiving unit has the
capacity to hold the fighters.
For example, a Federation FV group in the Reserve might
give up its fighters to a CVB group in the Battle Force, allowing it
to remain at full strength.

AND

(302.452) OPTION #2: The designating player can select as the
target for Directed Damage all (or some) of the fighters or (not
and) PFs assigned to a single given unit. Unit includes a base,
PDU, carrier, PFT, or an independent fighter/PF unit. In such case,
only a limited number of fighters/PFs can be destroyed, but the
designating player can decide which carrier (or whatever) loses
them.

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, January 04, 2013 - 01:30 pm: Edit

FEDS, please also note:

---

Quote:

(205.76) INDEPENDENT fighter squadrons (or independent PF flotillas) which arrived in the Battle Hex by Reaction Movement are presumed to fly back to their base to refuel and rearm between each combat round. As such, they always have a base (unless that base was eliminated by some enemy action earlier in the combat sequence, in which case they must find a new home after their first battle round).

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 04, 2013 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Noted...but if such an independent squadron is destroyed then there is nothing to send back to be refueled and rearmed.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, January 04, 2013 - 02:00 pm: Edit

True, but the order of battles could make a difference in such independent squadrons being available for more than one round.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 04, 2013 - 02:08 pm: Edit

...or the opposing player could choose to use (302.452) and whip-out the F-14 squadron altogether.

...or if the player chooses to resolve damage and self kill the F-14 squadron...

By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Saturday, January 05, 2013 - 11:27 pm: Edit

... or the player resolves up to six on the F14 squadron and then uses the starbase's non-F14 squadron to bring it back up to 8 factors between rounds

?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, January 06, 2013 - 12:44 am: Edit

Chris, I think the only way you can bring back the F-14s after 6 points of 8 required points resolved on the F-14s is to use a Fighter Storage Depot (445.0).

---

Quote:

(501.61) BETWEEN ROUNDS: Ships and bases of the same empire in the same hex can transfer fighters between each other between Combat Rounds as long as the receiving unit has the capacity to hold the fighters.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, January 06, 2013 - 01:20 am: Edit

Is there a question here?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, January 06, 2013 - 10:53 am: Edit

Q441.42 Can an Op Base (453.0) have modules added to it in the strategic movement phase after it has been moved by strategic movement (204.24) and(453.22). Op Bases can have 2 modules added to them under (453.12). Op Bases are always considered setup under (453.21). Modules are considered active on delivery under (441.422).

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Sunday, January 06, 2013 - 07:39 pm: Edit

Can anybody confirm that the Kzinti/Klingon tug Battle pods, individually, add +2 command rating each (maxing of course at 10)? While a Fed/Hydran TUG BP adds +2 as they can only carry 1, it seems like the Kzinti/Klingon Tugs it should only add +1 *per pod* as they carry 2 pods, so if they carried 1 BP and 1 SP/VP, they wouldn't have a CR of 10. The ISC BP is only +1 and its a more recent product.

There was a question in CL24, page 106, Q2402 seems to indicate that it should only be 1 as well (which spawned this question, though CL24 is pretty old).

Thanks