| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Sunday, February 16, 2025 - 07:41 pm: Edit |
Oh boy …
SAFs are bases for approach battles but not much else as they are mobile (if slow) and not static, like bases are.
Cannot be excluded (not a base).
Different locations, possible (they are mobile), but …
Escorted, yes (515.43).
Form [only one - (308.71)] if not escorted (308.74).
| By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, February 16, 2025 - 10:30 pm: Edit |
And this is for Jimi:
5-SAFs in the same hex
Here is my question to FEAR if we don’t get an answer:
After 3 rounds of approach they get to attack the SAF’s. I can escort each SAF, do the escorts or the SAF’s count as part of the command limits?
Or is 1 the main “base” and all others (are under that base with their escorts?
| By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, February 16, 2025 - 11:45 pm: Edit |
The SAFs probably would not. The escorts would.
SAFs are treated as convoys in open combat. (520.51)
I believe all the SAFs would not be treated as a base for separate locations in the hex like multi-BATS in a would. (302.2122) says convoys...serving as "supply points" are designated at the start of each round and nothing about regular convoys.
Since the SAF has to be in the battle force you need a biggest command ship possible since each SAF+2 escorts is 2 command slots.
You can likely kill one in the initial battle, and then maybe another one in the Slow Retreat.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, February 17, 2025 - 10:28 pm: Edit |
Ryan's answer is good with me.
| By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Sunday, March 23, 2025 - 11:06 pm: Edit |
Hello there. I have a question concerning initial PF deployment. Rule 502.6 in the main rule book covers the time table for PF deployments, rule 502.612 also states that normal production limits for PFT's and PFs begins on the second turn of free deployments. The Master F&E Order of Battle that are available through this website are also specific on when PF's will be available. The question that we are having is that Tactical Operations book that became available on 2021 on section 551.4 describes a Light PF tender that is available for all of the primary races, except the Romulans, and these Light PF tenders become available starting on year 175 depending on the race. Our question is that the main rules show that PFs don't start becoming available until year 178 spring at the earliest, and that you cannot start building PFTs and PFs until the second turn of free PF deployments, but Tactical operations says that you can start building Light PFTs as early as turn 175 depending on race. Does that mean that PFs can be built for these Light PF Tenders or are we misinterpreting the rules entirely? Thank you for your time.
| By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 11:42 am: Edit |
Just play it as listed. The formal PF deployment schedule remains unchanged. Those empires with light PFTs listed earlier in TO are allowed to build them earlier (and replacement PFs as needed) within the limitations of other rules. These just represent either interceptor tenders, or PF tenders carrying prototype PFs prior to full deployment.
Interceptors are not really called out specifically in FE, but just abstracted into these early PF factors on a few ships.
--Mike
| By Warren Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 01:51 pm: Edit |
Bill, your question is misleading. Nowhere is Y175 mentioned in any part of (551.4). However, under (551.413) Light PFT production would start on PF2 for a given empire. The TacOps SIT may create a question about availability with a YIS date not matching PF2.
NOTE: I have not looked at the TACOPS SIT to match YIS dates of light PFTs to PF2.
| By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 05:56 pm: Edit |
Mike, I appreciate the answer. Am I to understand that the races who are scheduled to build these Light PFTs on the TACOP SIT are allowed to do so, paying the price listed on the SIT, and replacing those attrition units as needed. Is that correct?
Warren, It was not my intent to be misleading. I should have been more specific in my question. I did not get the time table for these Light PF Tenders from the TACOPS manual. I got the schedule from from the TACOPS SIT. The Lyrans and Kzinti get these units on year 175, the other three races can build them on year 178. I asked my question on this site because I didn't understand how I could build these Light PF Tenders 7 turns before PFs would be available for deployment. Thank you for your time.
| By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 10:13 pm: Edit |
>> I have not looked at the TACOPS SIT to match YIS dates of light PFTs to PF2.
The TO SIT (and the corresponding SFB MSSB) indicate YIS of most of the light PFTs as prior to PF1:
| Empire | Unit | YIS | PF1 | Delta | MSSB |
| Lyran | DWY | Y175 | S-Y178 | 3 years before | (R11.91) |
| Kzinti | DWY | Y175 | F-Y180 | 5 years before | (R5.108) |
| Klingon | F5Y | Y177 | F-Y178 | 1 years before | (R3.157) |
| Gorn | BYD | Y178 | S-Y182 | 4 years before | (R6.95) |
| Hydran | DWY | Y178 | F-Y179 | 1 years before | (R9.117) |
| Romulan | CH | Y182 | F-Y181 | 1 years after | (R4.13) |
| By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 10:33 pm: Edit |
>> races who are scheduled to build these Light PFTs on the TACOP SIT are allowed to do so, paying the price listed on the SIT, and replacing those attrition units as needed.
Yes, that's how I read it. I'd further read:
to mean the limit on pre-PF1 light PFT production to be 1 per year by any means.
Quote:(551.413) Any empire can produce one of these light PFTs per year above the PFT limit; any further light PFT production counts against the PFT limit.
| By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 11:38 pm: Edit |
Outstanding, Thanks again Mike. I appreciate the response.
| By Warren Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, April 05, 2025 - 06:33 pm: Edit |
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, April 05, 2025 - 06:27 pm: Edit
Quote:Can the Federation use its (602.17 and 602.172) diplomatic money during T1-6 to pay the cost outlined in (443.31) replacing a Com Con?
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Sunday, April 06, 2025 - 06:54 pm: Edit |
Note that there is no diplomatic income on T1 as that's when they are moved into the various capitals (unless they are moved on Turn 0 or earlier via special rules) …
| By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Wednesday, April 09, 2025 - 05:45 pm: Edit |
Hello there. My gaming partner and I have just discovered that we have been using SWACS wrong for over three decades now. I'm hoping to get a clarification here. Section 518.43 in FO give the effects on enemy BIR for the various races and ship types. the line that shows a 2 point reduction for the BIR for the Klingons, Federation, and Orions. Is that reduction for their carriers and the fighters that they have deployed, or just for the fighters alone that have been deployed? Also, I haven't seen any mention of PFs. I would assume that their BIR would be reduced at the same rate as the fighters, am I wrong in this assumption?
| By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, April 09, 2025 - 09:13 pm: Edit |
Klingon and Orion PF's should fall under the -1 non-carrier.
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Wednesday, April 09, 2025 - 09:13 pm: Edit |
Bill, if it has drones, it's affected, if not, it isn't …
| By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Wednesday, April 09, 2025 - 09:52 pm: Edit |
I appreciate the answers guys. I understand that the idea behind the SWAC is to jam drones, or rather the guidance systems which explains why the Romulans are also effected with a -2. I also understand that all Federation, Klingon, and Orion ships(non-carriers) suffer a -1 modifier to their BIR. My question is on the -2 line for Klingons, Federation, and Orion ships does this -2 modifier only apply to fighters, or does it include the carriers as well? I suspect that it only includes the fighters, but I have been wrong before, and again I appreciate the help here.
| By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Tuesday, June 10, 2025 - 08:56 pm: Edit |
Since a PRD is just an FRD that can't move, and (314.254) refers to an FRD as being "co-located" with a base (and not a base itself), I'd say a PRD (like an FRD) is not a base.
Just my unofficial 2 cents.
--Mike
| By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, June 10, 2025 - 09:19 pm: Edit |
Except that the rule also calls out a PDU which also cannot move but is considered a base-like unit in combat along with (Convoy, Tug supply mission...). (425.161) It is treated like a base (requiring an approach battle, not counting against command limits, etc.).
FEDS:
Quote:
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |