Q(511.223):

---

Quote:

If the old Klingon colonies are reactivated, they could be devastated or captured by any empire except the Tholians (which, if it "captured" them, would restore them to the previous "non-existent" condition).

---

By Andrew Bruno (Admeeral) on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 03:22 pm: Edit

Humbly, am I to understand that if the Federation gains control of hex 2919 from the Coalition, they would be considered to have captured the the Klingon colonies and the Dyson's Sphere with the choice to cede the Sphere back to the Tholians or not?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 03:46 pm: Edit

If the old Klingon colonies are reactivated, then those Klingon planets and the Dyson sphere in 2919 could be captured by the Federation per (511.223). If the Tholians regain control of hex 2919 by any means, then those Klingon planets revert to their "non-existent" condition under Tholian control.

FEDS SENDS

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 03:48 pm: Edit

448.14 states that planets cannot be ceded separately, so you gotta give the Tholians the whole province. If you give them the province, they do nothing with the 3 Klingon planets (which kinda makes me think they should NEVER be able to be given any planet if they ignore ones next door to home) as the Tholians ignore those planets.

HOWEVER. You could retake the capital, the Feds would keep the Dyson Sphere, and the Tholians could retake the major world. As they are allies they can both own a planet there, the Tholians could re-establish their capital in their own home territory, and the Feds simply keep the sphere and send the Tholians 20 EP/turn for the "rent".

That way, the Alliance can gain those 3 Klingon planets in addition to the sphere, so kinda the best of both worlds.

Somebody feel free to correct me if I am wrong in any of that.

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Based on 511.41, capital defense priority, if the Coalition retakes the Hydran homeworlds, are the Hydrans allowed to leave hydran territory to attack targets in, say, Lyran and Klingon original home space?

Or does the *capture* of the capital pretty much kill that rule?

Obviously once the second capital is up based on 511.42, in this case the Hydrans off-map, the capital defense priority rule would no longer apply.

If capture doesn't kill the rule, the Tholians also wouldn't be allowed to leave their home territory, instead deciding to die to the last man....er...ship...er...crystal.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 04:28 pm: Edit

If the capital is reestabished in the off-map then capital defense priority requirement is suspended as the off-map capital is effectively beyond the two hex requirement of (511.43).

---

Quote:

(511.31) CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT: The empire immediately designates a new capital, which can be a planet or starbase. This must be an off-map area if the empire has one.

---

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 08:28 am: Edit

I am not certain you are allowed to do anything but give that territory including the sphere to the Tholians. Can the feds say liberate a Kzinti province previously captured (but not annexed) by the Klingons and just keep it for themselves? It seems the rules are written in a way that does not allow that, allies liberate other allies territory not conquor it.

Q1: Is it possible for an Ally to conquor territory (Planets or Provinces) rather than liberate it for their ally? (Assuming it has not been annexed by an enemy)
EX: The Feds kick the coalition out of the Tholian province after it had been conquored. Can they claim the province and planets for themselves or are they required to liberate it for the Tholians?


Q2: In the general war or other scenarios not a free campaign are allies allowed to cede home territory provinces to each other?
EX: Could the Kzinti cede one of their border provinces to the Federation, say because they were having a hard time keeping it connected to their main grid (or any other reason actually)?

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Note that there is now a Q&A Discussion topic to discuss topics that are brought up for either answers or rulings that do not apply to the question at hand being answered. Please use it instead of this topic.

Thank you.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 01:03 pm: Edit

Players:

Just a friendly reminder that before asking a question, it is the player's responsibility to fully research the question at hand. It is your responsibility to check past rulings for answers to your question.

While the FEAR and FEDS do want to answer or clarify your rules questions, I do ask that you please do your primary research first as the staff doesn't have unlimited time to research rules. Please know that when answering questions, if I am given a choice of between researching the rule set OR referencing the rule number(s) researched and provided by players I am more likely to answer those questions that are fully reseached more quickly.

Tips for faster processing:

State your rule question first led by your researched rule number that best addresses your question (if possible) then, in a second paragraph provide additional details or research that will help resolve or clarify the issue. Burying a question inside a dissertation on line 47 just makes it more likely to be overlooked which could result in it not being answered.

Example:

Q(299.456) How is this movement rule resolved when rule (499.654) on supply lines states otherwise?

In our game player X claimed that this rule doesn't apply because...

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 05:06 pm: Edit

What FEDS said! I am definitively more likely to skip over a question without references or signs that the question at hand has not been researched fully. - FEAR!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 06:28 pm: Edit

COMMAND GUIDANCE: As you noticed, F&E now has two Q&A topics, Q&A for questions and MIke's answers and Q&A discussion anything other than a question or an answer by Mike. No other game has this dual track. We won't be creating "Q&A discussion" topics for the other games until this is proven to work (if it does).

The problem we're trying to solve is that when Mike goes through the topic to pick out questions and answers for me to use in Captain's log, he often has to wade through a lot of discussions, some of them more useful than others. A given question might have one reply (two posts, easy to edit) or twenty (hard to find the final answer and give it to SVC).

The theory of the two topics is that every question goes into the Q&A topic and any discussion or reply OTHER than Mike's final reply goes in the discussion topic.

The danger is that both topics will turn into debates. To avoid that, we have to as YOU the gamers to work with us two ways.

First, when you post a question, Post it ONLY in the Q&A topic.

Second, the ONLY person who should ANSWER a question in the "Q&A" topic is MIKE CURTIS (FEAR). If you want to discuss the question or his answer, use the discussion topic, not the Q&A topic. If you know the answer, post it in the discussion topic and if you are right Mike will copy the answer to the Q&A topic.

But if you start discussing in the Q&A topic, this whole system will collapse.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 06:32 pm: Edit

What Mike said. If you include the relevant rule numbers and explain why you want to know and what you want to do and the implications of the potential answers, it's a lot easier for us.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 09:27 am: Edit

Q (513.123) and (320.332)

I have searched for a ruling in the archives, but cannot find one though I suspect it has been ruled on before.

Are escorts assigned to auxiliary carriers, auxiliary PFTs, ENGs, supply tugs, etc. considered to be slow units themselves for purposes of calculating combat potential for a drone raid?

We have assumed "yes" all game so far. This means that drone raids against slow targets typically kill an escort or two since compot is doubled. If the escorts are not themselves considered slow, how would this be resolved since the raid is presumably against the entire group (320.348)?

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 12:04 pm: Edit

(Q523.45) FRX. ISC war mentions empires can build more than 1 FRX in Y186 and later. However, (523.452) states that the Federation cannot build them, only within their 2 LTFs. Can the Federation build additional FRX in Y186 and later that are not part of a LTF?

(A525.452) The answer is Yes, Thanks turtle!

(Q453.0) Can an operational base be captured? It operates as a base, auxiliary, and ship, so I wasn't sure which took precedence for captures.

(Q539.1) Can APT's be in a reserve fleet?

(Q539.2) Can an PTR be captured? Can PTR's be in a reserve fleets? Should the PTR salvage be 0, when APT's get 0.2 and PTRs cost twice as much?

(Q539.3) Can an FXP be captured? Can FXP's be in a reserve fleets? Should its salvage be 0 as its a whopping 5 EP to purchase?

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 12:16 pm: Edit

Good format, just take the ( ) out of the Q###.##. It will search better that way. We use the ( ) for rules quotes.

Thanks!

By Andrew Bruno (Admeeral) on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Repost:

---

Quote:

Q(541.34) While performing a selected mission from (541.33), is an Engineer unit able to [edit] simultaneously perform any or all of the listed missions of (541.34) which simply states "In addition to the above missions:"?

I just want to be sure. Thanks!

FEDS requests FEAR assessment of this issue prior to making a ruling on this question.

---

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 12:39 pm: Edit

I put the (Q) in there as when you search, and have a rule reference, often you may reference another rule within the question or description.

By having the Q in there, an answer can have an A, then if you want to find an ANSWER to a (Q)uestion, you can search for (A###.##), a question would be (Q###.##), or a generic rule reference just (###.##).

Just a thought

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 12:46 pm: Edit

Reposting to add rule cites

I am not certain you are allowed to do anything but give that territory including the sphere to the Tholians. Can the feds say liberate a Kzinti province previously captured (but not annexed) by the Klingons and just keep it for themselves? It seems the rules are written in a way that does not allow that, allies liberate other allies territory not conquor it.

Q1(430.2 F&E2010 pg65): Is it possible for an Ally to conquor territory (Planets or Provinces) rather than liberate it for their ally? (Assuming it has not been annexed by an enemy)
EX: The Feds kick the coalition out of the Tholian province after it had been conquored. Can they claim the province and planets for themselves or are they required to liberate it for the Tholians?


Q2(448.0 PO pg 11): In the general war or other scenarios not a free campaign are allies allowed to cede home territory provinces to each other?
EX: Could the Kzinti cede one of their border provinces to the Federation, say because they were having a hard time keeping it connected to their main grid (or any other reason actually)?

The reason I asked these questions was that recent rulings dealing with provinces and planets seemed to be suggesting some things I thought were not allowed.

So for Q1, the rules seem very specific that province control and resultant income go to the Original owner. I want to make sure this is still the case and no ruling (or rule I missed) has changed that.

For Q2, a FEDS ruling made the statement that "FEDS: No, but any empire could cede the hex back to the Tholians but then those Klingon planets revert to their "non-existent" condition under Tholian control." however a reading of 448 one notices two branches, one for a Free Campaign and one for Any Campaign. The Any Campaign rule begins in the starting paragraph with making it clear that any ceded provinces must be a Captured Enemy province, then goes on to give ways and means of annexing and then transferring to a friendly empire. So I have always assumed that in a regular campaign you use only the rules from the "Any Campaign" portion of 448 and none of the "Free Campaign" rules.

Since the original question involved the Federation liberating the Tholian homeworld hex. I would see this as the Federation has no option but to turn over this to the Tholians. The rules just do not seem to support an ally being able to claim planets and provinces. Even if as is possible if said Ally had been completly removed from the game (all units destroyed all territory conquored). So when FEDS said it would be possible to cede this Tholian province back to the Tholians, my thought process was.

The Federation cannot cede it back because

1. They never owned it in the first place, because once they kick out the coalition it reverts back to the Tholians as the "original owner" under 430.0

2. And if they DID own it by some way I am unfamiliar with, they then could not cede it to the Tholians or anyone for that matter, as 448.0 Any campaign only allows ceding of provinces that are captured enemy provinces, which a Tholian province in the context of the original question (Tholians conquored by Coalition with Alliance as its allies) is NOT a conquored enemy province.

3. And if I had missed the second point, then even if somehow this Tholian province and planet could be considered Captured Enemy. The 448 rules only provide for ceding it to an ally once you have annexed it yourself. Which was not mentioned in the question nor answer.

So I ask the questions as I am confused as to if I am understanding the rules as they pertain to the liberation of allied provinces/planets vis a vis "Can I liberate an allies province and claim it for my own?" which seems impossible but the FEDS ruling in a backhanded way seemed to allow, and "Can I cede a friendly province to an ally in the general war?" which similarly seemed to be in contention given FEDS ruling.

I humbly submit I am NOT trying to be passive aggressive about FEDS ruling in this case, the ruling as made just confused me on two issues I thought I had a rather firm understanding.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 01:13 pm: Edit

(511.223) No other empire can activate these planets, or attack them before they are activated, but once activated they could be devastated or captured by other empires. The Klingons do not have to devastate the planets to capture them; they are captured when (and only if) Tholia is. If the old Klingon colonies are reactivated, they could be devastated or captured by any empire except the Tholians (which, if it “captured” them, would restore them to the previous “non-existent” condition).

FEDS: This is an example of a specific rule (511.223) is trumping the general rules.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 02:04 pm: Edit

This is an example of what I prefer:

Q511.223 Question...

That way you can search for "Q511.223"

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 08:51 pm: Edit

Q513.123 and 320.332 Question: I have searched for a ruling in the archives, but cannot find one though I suspect it has been ruled on before.

Are escorts assigned to auxiliary carriers, auxiliary PFTs, ENGs, supply tugs, etc. considered to be slow units themselves for purposes of calculating combat potential for a drone raid?

We have assumed "yes" all game so far. This means that drone raids against slow targets typically kill an escort or two since drone compot is doubled v. slow units If the escorts are not themselves considered slow, how would this be resolved since the raid is presumably against the entire group (320.348)?

By Andrew Bruno (Admeeral) on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Q322.11 Formation of pinwheels. Can one or more crippled ships be included in the initial formation of a PW?
I believe they should as (322.32) infers that a PW retains its integrity as long as none of it's components are destroyed.

Noting within (322.2) prohibits crippled Tholian ships from forming a PW as long as they meet the requirements of (322.2).

FEDS SENDS

By Michael Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Q421.23 Two uncrippled ships (each with a defense factor of seven or more) could replace a tug for towing purposes.

Can two warships who happen to now be stacked with the FRD(perhaps they arrived in the hex as a reserve) tow said FRD allowing it to retreat under tow?

FEDS: YES. Two qualified ships under (421.23) are treated as a tug alternative to tow an FRD under (509.1-F).

(509.1-F) states that tugs performing other missions cannot also tow an FRD, and that an unassigned tug or LTT can be assigned this mission during the retreat step, but I never found an enabling ruling allowing the two eligible ships to tow it during the retreat step.

FEDS: Two qualified ships serving as an FRD alternative tug under (421.23) are treated no differently then tugs under (509.1-M).

---

Quote:

(509.1-M) Regular Warship: A tug, LTT, or theater transport operates as a normal warship with its printed factors. This is the default mission until one is assigned and is the same as “unassigned”. This is the only assignment that can be changed during the turn.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 02:06 am: Edit

Q: (540.132)
Diplomats can be carried on "ships," presumably of any race (can find no restrictions for same empire).

Can a DIP cut off in an allied capital board an allied ship (say a Lyran DIP aboard a Romulan SPH in an isolated Romulus) and do a blockade run, staying in the target hex--similar to the way ADM and MMG may be returned to the owner's territory in this manner?

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Monday, February 11, 2013 - 11:27 am: Edit

Q410.5 Can a race not at war, adopt homeless ships? In this case the Gorns adopting Tholians fleeing after their space was conquered.

Q410.5 If the previous question is yes, can those adopted forces operate from the allied bases?

Q410.5 If both those answers are yes, can the adopted ships then use those allied bases as jumping off points for attacks into enemy space? And if so, how does that react with unreleased fleets?

Q410.5 If a race adopts homless ships that aren't in their supply grid yet, but they are in an allies grid, can those adopted ships use strategic movement of their allies to get back to the adopted races space? (paying for it with both races strategic movement of course)

Q410.4 Is an out of supply ship, which is not adopted, considered in supply if it is stacked with an allied base?

Q410.4 Assuming the previous answer was yes, does that mean out of supply, non-adopted ships, stacked on an allied base, are treated as "in supply" for movement and combat purposes? For example, could they establish a fully functional reserve fleet at an allied base and use extended reaction?

Stupid Tholians, can't keep their homeworld.