Archive through January 30, 2013
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A:
Archive through January 30, 2013
Quote:The FRD is the one item in that group that is actually a ship in SFB for all intents and purposes.
This statement appears to be incorrect. I thoroughly searched all my rules and could find no distintion in SFB as being a ship versus a unit. F&E does make the distinction clearly.
In SFB, "ships" are usually "units" that can move under warp power and designed for fighting. An FRD is neither. Thus, I'd say that in SFB a FRD is also not a ship, but rather a unit.
Well it moves, it has shields, it has crews, boarding parties, life support, damage control, sensors, scanners, basically everything that makes a ship a ship except warp engines. The only real difference between an FRD and a normal ship, aside from the obvious squares, is that it is only capable of 1 hex movement, instead of 31.
But a Warbird is also only capable of 1 hex movement, and its a ship.
And the OPB can do, well, warp speeds, and its also a "non-ship" unit.
All that is kinda irrelevant to the wording of the rules however. Those were design decisions and are pretty much set in stone. Moving on.
Auxiliaries are "non-ship" units, and non-ship units can never retrograde or produce salvage, yet the rules it states that auxiliary ships *can* retrograde and the SITs show they DO produce salvage. Thus in not all situations are "non-ship" units forced to abide by "non-ship" rules. Granted, under FRD's it doesn't say "can be infiltrated", but that is beside the point that "non-ship" can have exceptions.
The 537.12 rule says "one of the ships (not bases)". So why say "not bases" if the rule means only "ships", which bases are-not? If only "ships" are meant, why even mention the convoy, SAF, or LTF are excluded as those are not "ships" either? Listing exclusions when just "ships" should be sufficient is confusing.
Either the rule means "ships", and the references to other types of units should be excluded so it is clear based on the definition of "ship", or perhaps just list "warships or auxiliaries" as potential targets, which is a better and specific definition.
We resolved this in game (I killed a D6M instead), but I really think this rule should be cleared up (for the Warbook!) as its inconsistent and confusing.
IMO, which is pretty much always shot down with extreme prejudice on here, is that any auxiliary ship, or a FRD, should be a viable target for infiltration, as prime teams don't seem to have an issue killing them with ES&S attacks which can't be accomplished using that dissimilar tactics.
Deleted cuz I'm stoopid
Q502.93: If a single ship scout carrier in the free scout position sends its fighter squadron to the line as an independent squadron, and that squadron is the 4th Federation squadron in the battle force with the Third Way in effect, does that squadron count against command limits?
A Brief Overview of Relevant Rules:
502.93 - Establishes that with the 3rd way in effect, if the 4th fighter squadron in a battle force is an independent squadron sent by a carrier or base not in the battle force, it does not count against command limits.
308.53 - Free scout may be added to the battle force
308.533 - If the free scout has PFs or Non-Hybrid Fighters, they cannot be used except as independent units under 302.35
302.35 - A carrier, base, or PFT which is in the battle hex but not in the battle force may send its fighters to participate in the battle.
Consider a Hypothetical Federation third-way battle line with a CVA and CVS, and an NHV available in the hex:
From 502.93, it seems quite clear that if the NHV were placed in the support ecehelon to put its fighters on the line, that squadron would not count against command limits (Since by 302.562 ships in the support echelon are outside the battle force, so 502.93 applies).
Where this gets odd is if the NHV is placed in the free scout position, since it is technically in the battle force (as the free scout) but is sending its fighters forward independently as if it were not (per 308.533 and 302.35)... leading to the question above.
Are the Auxiliary Combatant Warship rules from CL43, or some incarnation of them, expected to eventually replace all auxiliary ship (at least those based on freighters of some kind) rules in all other books?
Now that we have so many types of auxiliaries, it sure would help clarify things and give them the grouping they've grown to need. and these rules are very much a step in the right direction IMO.
The Staff realizes that the F&E auxiliary ship rules are scattered in various products and that we may need to look at consolidating just the general operating rules at some point, but if and how that is done will be ADB's call. I envision this to be part of our update of CO where the first auxiliaries were introduced to F&E.
As to a one-stop-shopping rule grouping all auxiliary rules in one product -- that too would be ADB's call.
Extract Example - Large Auxes - Product:
| LAC | Large Auxiliary Combatant | CL43 |
| LAD | Large Auxiliary Drone Ship (Kzinti Only) | AO |
| FTL (LAG) | Large Auxiliary Troop Ship | CO |
| LAH | Large Auxiliary Heavy Fighter Carrier | AO |
| LAJ | Large Auxiliary Penal Ship | Subsumed |
| FHL (LAM) | Large Auxiliary Medical Ship | SO |
| LAO | Large Auxiliary Oiler (Ops Fueler) | Subsumed |
| LAP | Large Auxiliary PF Tender | AO |
| LAQ | Large Auxiliary Q-Ship | Subsumed |
| LAR | Large Auxiliary Repair Ship | CL33 |
| LAS | Large Auxiliary Scout | AO |
| LAV | Large Auxiliary Carrier | CO |
| ASC (LASC) | Large Auxiliary Space Control Ship | AO |
Ummmm, ok, got it. But are the rules from CL43 perhaps a beta of what might come to replace all the auxiliary rules? Seems like most stuff that makes a CL ends up being accepted.
And not to ask the same thing, but more to clarify my reasoning for the initial question...
I was asking as there are a lot of ships built on freighter hulls now in F&E, lots more than Chuck listed even with recent CL's, and it'd be nice to know every single auxiliary has attributes like:
Slow retreat
No pinning
Cannot disrupt/garrison
etc
As well as a single set of construction rules (# small auxiliary production, each ship worth "X" small auxiliaries, etc)
This came up when I noticed some rules for auxiliary carriers were not repeated with other auxiliaries, and only a few auxiliary types said they used auxiliary carrier rules. After looking into it more, I found all sorts of little missing tidbits like that, and it made my hair bleed 
Offensive Fighter Strikes.
So I move a single little old true non-auxiliary carrier into a hex with its 3rd MP. That hex contains an auxiliary carrier and is adjacent to bad guys.
Can that carrier send its fighters forward with an offensive strike, and when some are lost refill them from auxiliary carriers?
The auxiliary carriers can obviously not make the strike themselves, that is clear in the rules.
It is also clear there are multiple rounds of combat, and since the battle is treated like any other battle hex there should be no reason not to use the auxiliary carriers for, well, their sole purpose in life.
NOWHERE in the rulebook can I find anything mentioning when the Federation 5th Fleet is released. Sure, it has a detachment of most of the fleet that can leave when the Klingons attack, but the last few ships are stuck in an unreleased status apparently until the end of time.
I would presume they are released when the Gorn's attack the Romulans, but couldn't find anything in the book or the Q&A forum.
According to 603.5, if the Romulans didn't ATTACK the Federation on turn 10, the Gorns go to limited war.
3 parts to this.
#1. A declaration of war, or an attack of the tholians, is not the same as attacking the Federation for this purpose right?
#2. Capturing neutral zones aren't "attacking" the Federation for purposes of this right?
#3. If the Feds had a neutral planet that joined them, say 3912, and the Romulans attacked it, that WOULD be attacking the Federations for this purpose right?
Auxiliary Production is covered by (442.9) [AO] 'one aux per turn (any type), one Lxx per year' (442.91) except that one SAG (FTS) can be produced in additon to the whatever auxiliary was produced (442.92) plus one SAF per turn (442.93)...
Jumbos (Jxx) and Huges (Hxx) may be covered by the Large (Lxx) rule (once per year)...
Eric, that should work as the Aux fighters are transferring to the naval carrier before going on the strike...
Eric, on the Fed Fifth, see 603/Turn #10 - '5/6/7 released by Roms entering Fed space or adjacent NZ'
Quote:Offensive Fighter Strikes.
So I move a single little old true non-auxiliary carrier into a hex with its 3rd MP. That hex contains an auxiliary carrier and is adjacent to bad guys.
Can that carrier send its fighters forward with an offensive strike, and when some are lost refill them from auxiliary carriers?
The auxiliary carriers can obviously not make the strike themselves, that is clear in the rules.
It is also clear there are multiple rounds of combat, and since the battle is treated like any other battle hex there should be no reason not to use the auxiliary carriers for, well, their sole purpose in life.
I believe fighter strikes are strictly an operational movement activity. Thus, fighters still in the hex of the supporting CV can't "fill" lost fighters in the hex of the fighter strike. 319.3 does not support this.
Fighter strikes seem to go either way to me, we already just dropped them for now, but a ruling would be nice
603.2, got it, Thanks Stewart! The 5th is released when Roms enter the neutral zone or Federation territory.
However stewart, there are a LOT of kinds of auxiliaries now. Heck, lets go through them:
Supported by rules/have counter:
FHL, FTL, FTS, LAP, SAP, LAH, SAH, LAS, SAS, SAV, LAV, ASC, HVH, SAF (Not 1 ship, but still)
And the unsupported ones, but ones that may be in future products:
SAO, LAO, LAB, HAB, SAL, HAM, SAJ, JACB, JAC, HAC, LAC, SAC, JAP, HAP, JSC, HSC, JAV, HAV, JBV, JOP, JAM, FTJ, FTH, HAH, FHS, LVH
Many of these have rules now in some form in Captain's Logs. Essentially I think those CL rules should be finalized, and overrule many of the previous rules so the auxiliaries become more consistent.
Just saying "1 aux/turn, 1 large/year", really doesn't work as well as it did when only SAV/LAVs existed in the game.
I guess I was just hopeful that CL43 was a vision of what was to come, as I think it'd be nice to see those rules in some form trump the existing ones.
Like I said before we can look at consolidating some of the general aux operating and overall production rules when we look at updating CO but only if that is the path ADB wants to pursue.
What we really cannot do is move existing aux SHIPS and their associated rules found in other products into CO or any one other product. We could refer the players to the operating and production limits for these units to CO if ADB so chooses.
I have found the production rules for Aux. Ships to be pretty straightforward.
For my own edification can a statement of what the problem with Aux Production is be made?
So each race has the following production slots:
1 FTL or 2 FTS each turn.
1 AuxCV per turn, 1/Year can be large
So:
FHL = Large Auxiliary Slot
LAP/LAH/ASC/LAD/LAS/LAV = Large Auxiliary Carrier Slot
SAP/SAH/SAD/SAS/SAV = Small Auxiliary Carrier Slot
All of the non-scout/hospitals have upper limits of counts.
Yes, that is pretty straight forward, although there now 6x as many auxiliary ship types as there were when AxCV's were created.
The problem would be when you start to include all those auxiliary warships I had listed. The current method doesn't really work for that too well.
That is why I brought the whole thing up, is because CL43 seemed to have pretty decent rules for the new auxiliary ship production, and I was wondering if they may be extrapolated to include current ships now.
For example, IIRC CL43 said you get 8 SACs per turn or something. 1 HAC replaces 2 SAC, 1 JAC replace 3 SAC, etc. Large auxiliaries are "2 SAC", while small just "1 SAC" (my numbers may be off, but the point is the same). So it would be a lot easier to handle all future auxiliary production under that system. Instead of 442.9, all auxiliaries would fall under the same system, even maybe some LAVs needing activation.
If the CL43 system, assuming it is implemented, just deals with the new auxiliary warships and the current system will continue to handle all the auxiliaries, that is a fine answer too.
Just trying to build myself an easier to use SIT database, and consistency is pretty darned important!
Aahhhh, but the xACs are from a diffrent pool than the Naval Auxes...
Yet another question, maybe this one is easy to answer and can be quick since it is key in our current turn.
So hex 0404 has a Lyran Starbase, and hex 0504 a BATS.
I move a huge fleet into 0404, leaving a frigate in 0504 to ensure it is a battle hex.
The enemy also has a huge fleet in 0404, thanks to some reserves.
The attacker offers approach. The defender declines.
So the defender must retreat, and chooses 0504.
Based on the rules, it *appears* that a telepathic defender with ultrawarp is able to retreat to 0504, BEFORE the attacker can get there.
Why this seems insane to me:
#1. The defender is retreating from a supply point they still own.
#2. The defender is retreating BEFORE the attacker, which seems like the Attacker would just stay there and sack a newly empty Starbase.
#3. The defender has more mobility between these 2 hexes, than within 2 systems in a capital assault.
#4. Not only does the defender retreat FIRST, but also can apparently fly faster than the attacking fleet that left earlier, even though in a pursuit the attacking fleet has benefits to pursuits!
#5. As the defender is flying INTO a battle hex, and has plenty of other hexes to go into (or staying where they were), how is that NOT a fighting retreat? The attacker can't retreat a single frigate into a battle of 100+ ships without creating a fighting retreat, so how can the exact situation but reversed not create the exact same situation?
This just completely defies all logic to me, and all sense of how game design requirements of having a logical flow.
So, can somebody point out in Black and White how this works, and if it is indeed so, the possible logic behind creating such a paradox?
I *might* have figured this out, thanks to 302.741.
Phase 5-2A2, attacker offers approach
Phase 5-2A3, since defender rejected approach, move to 5-2B
Phase 5-2B, base battle
Phase 5-2B1, attacker exercises option to retreat before base combat (302.23), if attacker retreats, go to Phase 5 step 7.
Phase 5-7, retreat
Phase 5-7A1, defender announces retreat
Now there is an infinite recursion loop. Attacker can continually not retreat, and force another approach offer, surely one of them will eventually give in
Now the good stuff. 302.712, since defender probably decline to retreat on the 1st option, defender will accept the 2nd option. However, accepting the 2nd option means the attacker remains in the hex and does not have a further retreat option until the hex is resolved.
302.741 states that if the defender left a base behind, it forces players to return to step 2. This would mean the attacker must offer an approach again, which the defender could accept with the 12 fighters of the Starbase, or not.
So, in short:
attacker offers approach
defender declines
attacker declines
go to retreats
Attacker declines 1st retreat option
defender accept retreat option
attacker then accepts your 2nd retreat option
However, since attacker left a base, 302.712 states that defender has to stay there.
defender retreats to 0504 without your Starbase.
Now *that* makes more sense, at least in regards to "Defender always retreating first", basically, if the defender leaves his base, he lets the enemy stay there.
Is that all right, or did I screw some logic up?
Q320.312 Do the fighters and/or PFs on a FDU, or PDU pin a ship attempting to conduct a drone or fighter/PF raid if the FDU or PDU is located
in the same hex as the Attack Hex?
Rules for consideration:
(203.541) Fighter (501.9) and PF (502.46) “ship equivalents” count as ships for purposes of pinning and counter-pinning. In the most basic sense, simply count all of the fighter factors and divide by six to get the number of ship equivalents they comprise. Thus, smaller carriers with fewer than six factors of standard fighters can combine their smaller squadrons into squadrons of six factors for purposes of pinning or command.
(320.312) The "Attack Hex" cannot contain a number of enemy ships sufficient to pin the raiding force. See (320.333). If ships react into a valid attack hex they will not block the raiders by pinning but would make interception (320.35) very dangerous for the raiders. Ships cannot use their command ratings (203.55) to avoid pinning in this case.
Thomas I'm no authority but we have interpreted this to mean that only ships, not SE of fighters can pin raids. In other places in the rules where SE of attrition units can pin they refer to "ships or SE of ships" or something like that.
Eric, you're still trying to connect the decision to announce retreat to the conduct of retreat. The order of deciding who retreats is a completely different procedure totally disconnected from the order of who retreats.
Specifically you missed 302.72. The defender retreats first. Had the decision to retreat had anything to do with the conduct of retreat, then this rule would inherently conflict with the retreat decision order. For example, had the defender announced retreat first, and had this first announcement influenced the order of retreats, then you'd have the rules telling you the defender retreats both last and first - a direct paradox. The rules do not contain a paradox as there's no enabling rule connecting the two decisions, so therefore the defender *ALWAYS* retreats first. It really doesn't matter when the players made their decision to retreat. This fact can dramatically alter where the attacker retreats, as the situation may change after the defender conducts his retreat.
Additional Rules for consideration to Q320.312 posted By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 06:04 am: Edit
(536.22) Pinning: FDUs do not block enemy movement, enemy supply, or count for purposes of pinning (203.52), although their fighters and/or PFs do count for purposes of pinning and blocking supply.
(536.23) Reaction: Fighters and PFs on an FDU can react to another location in the same hex, but not to another hex.
But Ted, 302.712 states that if the Defender accepts the second opportunity to retreat, the attacker remains in the hex and has no further retreat option.
So, sure, the defender retreats first, always, and it is even specified in 302.712.
In this case, the defender does in fact, retreat first, no contradiction there.
BUT, by doing so, it prevents the attacker from retreating at all, and that couldn't be much more clear as "attacker remains in the hex" is pretty absolute.