| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, December 06, 2025 - 11:05 am: Edit |
John
I beleive the intent is that the Expeditionary Fleet Tug - which is initially set up as the Expeditionary Supply Tug - can eiher remain in that roll for the entire game - or can switch to any other permitted Tug mission and then is used as a normal Tug.
However, if it does that, it can never go back to the Expeditionary Supply Tug mission.
i.e - it's single option to change and is permmanent.
(In effect, it's like the Klingon CVT 'Tugs' - they can be changed to a TGA, but the 'pods' they had are permamently lost)
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, December 22, 2025 - 11:22 am: Edit |
Quote:By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Monday, December 22, 2025 - 09:23 am: Edit
The Kzinti capital is captured by the Coalition. They relocate the shipyard to the offmap.
If they subsequently recapture the capital hex, is Kzintai a "capital" planet for purposes of PDUs (ie: max 20)? Or a major since it's where the capital and shipyard are currently located?
| By James McCubbin (Kimokhan) on Friday, January 02, 2026 - 03:30 pm: Edit |
My apologies but I could not find this anywhere.
The Romulans have gotten in range to raid the Fralli cruiser and did 2 casualty points which destroyed it since it cannot move.
There is no build cost and the conversion cost is not possible either (due to no such thing as a crippled POL, or just even having those other crippled ships in the area). We ended up saying to make a crippled CL just build it for 3 points, a crippled FF is 2 points and the non-existent crippled POL is 1 point + 3 conversion = 9 points.
Is it really indented to give the Romulans a 9 point economic raid each turn?
What is the intended effect and replacement costs?
| By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Friday, January 02, 2026 - 06:46 pm: Edit |
Or you just ignore the Fralli's existence.
It's more a nod to a ADB staffer thana serioud ship.
| By John M. Williams (Jay) on Thursday, February 26, 2026 - 02:44 pm: Edit |
We're playing the Long-Distance War and treating all the Lyran and Klingon bases and planets as neutral outposts to be eliminated/conquered.
If Player A attacks a neutral planet, rule 503.63 allows Player B to assist in the defense of that planet (either via reaction or sending a reserve fleet).
Rule 503.633 says that if Player A is forced to retreat off the hex, then Player B's ships may remain in the hex. However, the rule also says that if Player B's forces don't move off the planet during their next movement phase, then they are considered to be attacking the planet.
If Player B does decide to attack that planet during his next turn, does that trigger an opportunity for Player A to react ships into the hex? Technically, Player B's ships haven't moved, but this switch from being defender to attacker seems material enough that an opportunity to react to it sounded reasonable. In discussing how to handle this, we noted that the "march in place" option under 203.64 is another situation where reaction is possible, even though actual movement did not occur.
I did a search on 503.633 and didn't find anything. I assume that this is an odd enough situation that it may not have come up before.
What are other people's thoughts?
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, February 26, 2026 - 07:43 pm: Edit |
Note that (503.63) says that if one side is attacking, the other may defend it. Doesn't matter how the 'attacker' got there, just that there is an attacker …
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, March 22, 2026 - 10:15 pm: Edit |
Comment on Ken Kazinski's question in the Q thread:
Interceptors are not reflected in F&E. Their existence is wrapped up into the abstraction of the defined turns of PF introduction, AFAIK. So, I don't think that would affect the ruling.
Good thought, though.
| By John M. Williams (Jay) on Friday, April 24, 2026 - 11:21 am: Edit |
A tug is setting up a mobile base and is attacked.
After the approach battle is resolved, the attacker wishes to attack the tug setting up the MB. Rule 302.233 says the tug must be included in the battle force and that the tug counts against command limits.
Rule 510.231 says that the base (combat factor zero) must also be in the battle force. Does it also count against command limits? The implication seems to be "yes," but it is not explicitly stated.
| By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, April 24, 2026 - 05:51 pm: Edit |
Bases don't count against command limits.
(302.335) Bases, convoys, PDUs, and FRDs required to be included in the Battle Force (302.23) do not count against the Command Rating.
| By John M. Williams (Jay) on Friday, April 24, 2026 - 10:24 pm: Edit |
If it doesn't count against command limits, what is the practical effect of requiring it to be in the battle force? I don't see one. If the attacker could direct at it, then there would be one. However, the attacker can only direct at the tug. As I see it, if it doesn't count against the command rating, then whether it is in the battle force or not has no practical consequence.
| By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, April 24, 2026 - 11:16 pm: Edit |
Because the tug has to be in the battle force, so then the deploying base has to be in the battle force. Otherwise the base is considered abandoned and automaticly destoryed.
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, April 25, 2026 - 07:43 am: Edit |
John
To add to what Ryan said - remember, a Tug is also required to upgrade a base and so in effect the rule covers two aspects : -
1) MB being emplaced by the Tug - so the Base has zero compot and is it's concsidered a base, is not included from Command Rating purpose - but the Tug does need to be included (and it's Compot counts - and it counts towards Command Rating - unless it's the Flagship etc)
1) A Base is being upgraded by the Tug - so the Base has the unupgraded compot included and as it is base, is not included from Command Rating purpose - but the Tug does need to be included (and it's Compot counts - and it counts towards Command Rating - unless it's the Flagship etc)
The only two diffences are, the being emplaced MB will always have 0 Compot - and base being upgraded could be the Flagship for the Force.
So bases are always free for Commmand Limit purposes 
(noting the Dual Location Base Rule can also apply!)
| By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Saturday, April 25, 2026 - 12:17 pm: Edit |
And to John's point, forcing a 0 combat contributing base in progress to be in the battle force is indeed a rule, but it adds no combat value to the battle force itself. So it is largely inconsequential. The tug will be the focus of enemy action if the goal is to stop the base from being setup.
--Mike
| By John M. Williams (Jay) on Tuesday, April 28, 2026 - 10:52 pm: Edit |
I have a retreat question.
Suppose the Feds and Gorns fight the Romulans in 4309 and decide to retreat. The nearest Gorn base is in 4004; the nearest Fed bases are 3804, 3806, and 3808. There is a small, unresolved battle in 4208 (small enough that Priority 2 will not apply).
Under sub-priority 3D, the shortest Gorn supply path requires retreating into 4308 or 4208, and the shortest Fed supply path requires retreating in 4208 or 4209. All these hexes would be in supply for their respective empire.
The last sentence of the first paragraph of 302.761 says that if two allies can retreat to the same hex after applying the four priorities, they must do so.
Both the Feds and Gorns can retreat to 4208, but in each individual case, it would be a fighting retreat.
Given this situation, what should happen?
A: Because both the Gorns and Reds can retreat to 4208, they must do so. Because that is the only hex that satisfies sub-priority 3D for both empires, it is not a fighting retreat.
B: Because both the Gorns and Feds can retreat to 4208, they must do so. Because that would be a fighting retreat for each empire individually, it is fought as a fighting retreat.
C: The Gorns and Feds may retreat separately into 4308 and 4209 or may retreat together into 4208 as a fighting retreat.
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, April 29, 2026 - 07:15 am: Edit |
John
Fighting retreat is always optional - so neither 'has' to go to 4208.
4 Outcomes
A) Alliance Fighting Retreats to 4208
B) Feds go to 4209 and Gorns go to 4308
C) Alliance goes to 4209* OR
D) Alliance goes to 4308*
* - You and retreat all under the Flagship of the last battle force - so if it was a Gorn Flagship in 4309, A,B or D is an option - if it was a Federation Flagship in 4309, A, B or C is an option.
I don't know if Fighting Retreat just one Allied Memmber to 4208 and the other retreats normally is allowed - I can't remember which rule (Fighting Retreat is always optional v Retreat to same hex if that is possible trumps the other rule).
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 29, 2026 - 12:27 pm: Edit |
MEMO TO STAFF, something to address in your project.
| By John M. Williams (Jay) on Wednesday, April 29, 2026 - 03:58 pm: Edit |
To be sure I understand your option C and D:
Option C (Fed flagship): all ships may retreat to 4209, even though this means the Gorns would be violating sub-priority 3D.
Option D (Gorn flagship): all ships may retreat to 4308, even though this means the Feds would be violating sub-priority 3D.
I know that fighting retreats are always optional, but sometimes retreating towards supply requires retreating into a hex that already has enemy ships. For example, after a battle in 902, the Kzintis may be required to retreat onto a smaller force garrisoning the planet in 1001 because that is the only hex allowed by sub-priority 3D. In which case, it is not a fighting retreat.
In the scenario I described, I wasn't sure if 4208 stopped being a fighting retreat because it was the only hex that allowed both empires to retreat together and still satisfy sub-priority 3D.
| By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Wednesday, April 29, 2026 - 04:27 pm: Edit |
John
Essentially, the retreating force has a choice under (302.76):
Evaluate retreat for the entire force as a whole based on (302.73) using the priorities of the empire that provided the last flagship
OR
Evaluate retreat for each empire separately based on (302.73).
If the entire force retreats together based on the flagship, there's no 'second' evaluation of (302.73) criteria for the other empire.
As for your question, I'm pretty sure 4208 is still a fighting retreat, since the restriction in (302.761) explicitly applies only after all retreat priorities have been run (and the retreating units have either chosen to exclude 4208 under Priority 4 or not).
Amusingly, it's theoretically possible for the Gorn and Federation to make different choices in regards to Priority 4. This would result in one taking the fighting retreat and the other eliminating hex 4208, and the forces ending up in separate places without violating (302.761) .
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, April 30, 2026 - 03:42 am: Edit |
John
Yes - as if they retreat with their 'Allies' - their supply requirement is ignored at that point in time.
i.e. if they all retreat to 4209 under a Federation Flagship, they are required to folow the Federation retreat priorities.
(In effect it's a choice and you use which ever rule is most appropriate).
| By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, May 01, 2026 - 10:11 am: Edit |
Suppose the Feds and Gorns fight the Romulans in 4309 and decide to retreat.
The nearest Gorn base is in 4004; the nearest Fed bases are 3804, 3806, and 3808.
There is a small, unresolved battle in 4208 (small enough that Priority 2 will not apply)
Lets look at the facts compared to the rules and use the Retreat checklist found over on the Warbook annex page.
First there are some stipulations to discuss when looking at a retreating allied force.
When any ally from a combined force retreats, all must go (no partial retreats outside of a capital hex which is not the case here).
Under (302.76) allied forces they must remain together and use the priorities of the force who either provided the flagship of the last battle round, the withdraw before combat (or in a partial retreat from a capital, again not the case those that first retreated from the hex).
Allies that are not the lead role here in this retreat may have to retreat out of supply when following supply of their ally.
There is an exception: Allied forces may choose to retreat separately following the priority steps.
Even if separate paths are chosen then all ships of the same empire must go to the same location i.e. no splitting of an empire's forces. (Sending some ships to their own hex while allowing some to go with their ally is not allowed).
Check both allies priority options. IF there is an overlapping hex (or hexes) when priorities are determined then both allies must go together to one hex.
Facts provided:
Combat is at Minor Planet 4309
Gorn closest supply point 4004 (5 hexes distance).
Assumed there must be something blocking the Gorn from BTS 4203 or their Capital in 4403(?)
Fed closest supply points are bases 3808, 3806 (5 hexes distance) 3804 (6 hexes distance).
Notes: There is no information provided as to the condition of the Romulan border bases so I am assuming they are all intact.
From Johns information it is also assumed no ship withdrew from combat previous to the combat and subsequent retreat step or the hex would have already been decided under (302.134).
Assuming John wants to look at the separate retreat force option.
Priority 1: Future Belligerent/Neutral There is no possibility from this battle hex to retreat into a Neutral territory/Future belligerent for either of his allies (Fed or Gorn). Move on to Priority 2.
Priority 2: Outnumbered Force "There is a small, unresolved battle in 4208 (small enough that Priority 2 will not apply)" Without a count provided it is assumed to mean the number of Romulan (assumed) ships present in this battle (4208) is not higher than the total number of friendly forces present in the battle plus the retreating Fed ships alone, Gorn ships or (or Fed plus Gorn ships). Under Priority 2 this hex is NOT eliminated by the presence of enemy forces.
Priority 3: Supply
3A: No Supply: Are any of the retreat hexes in supply? Yes, from the description provided some of the hexes are in supply for the Feds and some for the Gorn, some are not. As such Priority 3: Supply may NOT be skipped over. Move on to 3B.
3B: OOS: Which hexes would be out of supply? For the Gorn only 4409 seems truly eliminated as leaving the Romulans in the Minor planet hex would block their supply to 4004. (Again the capital path to 4403 must be blocked). For the Fed only 4409 seems truly eliminated as leaving the Romulans in the Minor planet hex would block their supply route through 4308 or 4310. All other hexes are still in supply for both empires.
3C: Partial Grids: Are there any hexes supplied by Partial Supply Grids? There are no partial supply grids indicated (main grid supply only) and as such 3C can be skipped for both empires. Move to 3D.
3D: Shortest Supply Path: Of all the remaining hexes in supply which have the shortest path?
The hexes with the shortest Gorn supply path are 4308 or 4208. (4209, 4310, 4408 are eliminated as too far from 4004.)
The hexes with the shortest Fed supply path are 4208 or 4209. (4308, 4310, 4408 are eliminated as too far from supply). Move to 3E.
3E: No Previous Hex: There are no previous hexes to consider in this situation, move to 3F.
3F: Varied Length of Supply: Are there any of the remaining hexes that would be out of supply for some units but not others in the retreating force? When taken individually the answer would be no the hexes that remained for each empire in priority step 3D would still be in supply for each empire in this step. Move to Priority 4.
Priority 4: Enemy Presence: Are their hexes with enemies present? 4208 is a battle hex with enemies present this hex is eliminated, (except by the possibility of Fighting Retreat if it qualifies). Since John has elected from the start to follow the individual retreat option this leaves only hex 4308 for the Gorn (their only hex remaining) and 4209 as an option for the Fed (their only hex remaining).
FR Option: Did Priority 4 eliminate any hexes? Since Priority 4 DID eliminate hex 4208 John could choose to conduct a fighting retreat with either the Fed or the Gorn or both. Despite the last line of the first paragraph in (302.761) referencing normal retreat, John is not forced to do a fighting retreat as fighting retreat is always an option.
Paul and Patrick are correct. Using the "retreat separately" option the choice is C. If not already clear then the language will be evaluated to state that one or more allied empire in a separate retreat may retreat normally while one (or more of the allies may choose a fighting retreat). This would not be an option if they follow the "retreat together" path.
Retreating together the force would have to follow the rule on who provided the last battle's flagship (or the withdraw hex already established at the beginning of combat). In this situation, 4308 if it were the Gorn Flag or 4209 if it were the Fed Flag. Priority 4 would still have eliminated 4208 allowing John to skip priority 4 in favor of FR taking both forces into 4208 for an FR battle and subsequent retreat.
| By John M. Williams (Jay) on Friday, May 01, 2026 - 10:40 am: Edit |
Thank you for the detailed analysis. That is very helpful!!
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |