This topic is now in business.

Jean
WebMom

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 Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 09:54 pm: Edit

In response to the Q&A thread, which I didn't want to clutter with non-questions.

I find searching *extremely* difficult and have spent more than an hour going through the 78! pages of Q&A looking for an answer that was nowhere to be found. More recent Q&As are better, as answers are color coded, but earlier ones didn't and its hard to even see where answers are.

Perhaps breaking down Q&A by main rule number (300, 400, etc) would help. Then you could have the questions in the main Q&A thread, with the folks who give an answer putting it in the proper category once answered. This makes it easy to see what is answered. At the same time, the contents of those messages can be added to a "current answers" thread, that gets cleared out for each CL. Plus, perhaps less of our questions would be missed.

Ya'll could also very strictly enforce a format, and delete everything that doesn't fit.

Perhaps force a question to be in the format:

(Q451.2) What is the air speed of an unladen swallow?

And the answers are all:

(A451.2) African or European. - FEDS

This could allow VERY quick searches to find the questions for particular rules, as well as answers for them, and would speed up searches immensly.

To see if it has been integrated into a CL, another character could be added to answers, so something like (A-451.2) if it isn't in a CL yet, or "CL45 (A451.2) African or European. - FEDS" if it was included.

I'm probably more guilty than most lately with questions, as I'm new, actively playing, and not playing in a very typical manner and encountering all sorts of new things that I don't have 25 years of "we always played it this way" to fall back on. For that I apologize.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 08:51 am: Edit

Eric, never apologize for asking questions. It is the only way to learn. It is when you make assumptions that X is right (and it isn't) that things go haywire. Far better to learn the right way from the start.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 09:27 am: Edit

At this point, I don't see the time available to change the existing archives but we have tried to get players to include rule numbers more recently.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 10:45 am: Edit

This a great idea and should make finding rulings going forward much more efficient. At a minimum it should make deleting the banter about rule questions 100% easier while giving FEAR back his kitchen.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 12:21 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?

Yes, see Updates to Earlier Rules in ISC War. (525.452) The Federation may (Y186 and later) build FRXs.

(Q453.0) Can an operational base be captured?
No, Bases and Auxiliaries can't be captured under the various rules. Op Bases are a combination of both. See (453.0)and (513.121).

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 12:43 pm: Edit

Thanks turtle on the FRX thing, I gotta include that ISC update page in my "master" PDF I made with all the rules, ack. I updated the question with the answer.

As for the OPBs, I know they are bases/auxiliaries, but they also operate as ships, so I just wasn't real sure which took precedence for captures.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 10:40 pm: Edit

If there is a reason my questions in the Q&A are habitually ignored, am I allowed to know the reason? I do honestly try to keep to the format.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 12:00 am: Edit

Paul, some questions require some research and take longer than others to answer. Also those questions requiring clarification or explanation by FEAR are the only official answsers. Answers by FEDS in green are usually official unless overruled by the G.O.D. Others may attempt to answer a question. I typically only answers those where I feel the answer is already in the rules by providing the rule number or a link to a previous ruling in the Q&A Archive file.

I, myself have 2 or 3 questions that I know are still awaiting answers because they require some research.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 02:02 am: Edit

Thank you Thomas. Absolutely no offense intended; I know it is a labor of love.

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 02:43 am: Edit

Adding a flag to these questions, something like "ACKNOWLEDGED - RESEARCHING" in some pretty color would at least let us know they weren't ignored or overlooked, and that string could be looked for by FEDS/FEAR/etc to see any unanswered questions.

I think a neato little website that just has a list of questions, with their answer status, relevant rule numbers, rule versions, etc, would not only be easier to search, but easier to deal with in all sorts of ways. I'll knock it out if there is any interest in it, but I'm pretty sure it is desired to keep the Q&A within 'discus'.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 06:06 am: Edit

The Q&A archive thread contains all the rules and rulings as well as Q&A that has been published since Captain's Log #24. If you use the Keyword search to the right and choose the F&E topic only, you can search by rule number. You will get links to that specific rule number in the entire F&E thread. but DISCUS tells you what thread and even what part of the archive file. So for example (433.43),which is Romulan Modular Ships will bring up the some of the following:

---

Quote:

1. Federation & Empire: F&E Master SITs: 04-Romulan SIT Updates
• hulls cannot use the SPs 433.432 ability to do conversions du
• modular change ability under 433.43. This flexibility is not ext
• Stewart: 433.432 allows for production of SP
• If not using 433.43 but a normal conversion in433

2. Federation & Empire: F&E Q&A: Archive through April 08, 2012
• Q433.43 Can the Romulans build a spar
• Q433.43 Can Free Fighter Factors 431.


3. Federation & Empire: F&E Q&A: Archive 2008
• points Romulan Modular Ships 433.432; HDWs 525.222 ; conduct WYN
• But under 433.432, page 45, FE 2K Romulan Modu


4. Federation & Empire: F&E Proposals Forum: Romulan carriers/escorts: Archive through December 10, 2008
• Isnt that penalty enough? 433.432: Modules cannot be used on t
• for later use I think that 433.433 allow this...


5. Federation & Empire: F&E Q&A: Archive 2003: Bi-Monthy Archive
• Robert Padilla: See rule 433.432, it explains everything. If
• Reece, see last sentence of 433.433. If you convert or sub a sky


6. Federation & Empire: F&E After Action Reports: F&E 2010 After Action Reports
• 2B5 Change reference from 433.432 to 433.43. The reference fo


7. Federation & Empire: F&E After Action Reports: ISC War After Action: Archive through April 26, 2012
• 2B5 Change reference from 433.432 to 433.43. The reference for


8. Federation & Empire: F&E Q&A: Archive through January 23, 2013
• Q433.432 Could a Sector Base 452.0 co


9. Federation & Empire: F&E Q&A: Archive 2005
• them on a ship permitted by 433.432; 4 have the DMH-?B converted


10. Federation & Empire: F&E Master SITs: 04-Romulan SIT Updates: Archive through January 21, 2012
• of ship for the Roms. 2FE2K 433.43 states that SP & SK are m


Result Pages: [<<Prev] 1 2 [Next>>]
Individual word counts: 433.43: 50

---

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 12:19 pm: Edit

Thanks for confirmation of diplomat question in Q&A.

Also thanks for the above information about searching, as it will help me avoid asking as many dumb questions as I do currently.

By Andrew Bruno (Admeeral) on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Ditto

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Sorry guys, I left off one tip for the above. When I do my search I leave off the parenthesis. So when I enter just the rule number it is 433.43 not (433.43). You could try putting the letter Q infront of the rule number. That may or amy not narrow the search down for what your looking for. I would tend to think that it would. Also, if one rule doesn't work and your looking for an interaction between that rule and another rule, try the other rule number. You never know what you will get.

Back when I was in the Army, a Sergeant once told me the only dumb question is the one you don't ask.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 09:08 pm: Edit

You should always omit the parentheses as some people use them and others do not.

Remember that when searching, the system isn't looking for a word, it is looking for that sequence of characters within the text. Always choose the base form of a word that you are looking for: weapon will find posts with weapon or weapons.

If you type two words, it looks for those as a Boolean "or" and it searches the entire page. Typing seeking weapons will find posts with seeking and posts with weapons and posts with seeking and weapons, including "I am seeking for the weapons that were blown off my ship" and a page that has a post about direct-fire weapons and a second post with someone seeking an answer having to do with Romulan modular ships.

If you know you are looking for seeking weapons, use quotes around the phrase so type "seeking weapon" which will find seeking weapon, seeking weapons, or seeking weaponry in the same post.

If you are looking for two concepts, for example, Romulan modular ships (433.43) and how that rule affects conversions, try using the "+" in front of the two words (again as a base form: +433.43 + conver so that you get conversion, convert, converted, etc.). That means that both words MUST be on the page. That way, if someone cites rule 433.33 as the answer to a question about how many conversions are available to the Romulans, you can find the relevant page and go forward and back as needed.

I know that SVC and Mike are discussing some sort of document that can use Adobe's native search engine so that searching for already published Q&A articles will be easier.

Mike, you may wish to create a subtopic on How to Search so that we don't clutter your kitchen and maybe folks can find this information more easily. I know it is under Keyword Search, but unless you use it a lot, you don't necessarily understand the implications of your choices. Research is my professional business and sometimes I get confused.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 11:45 am: Edit

When I do perform a search based on rule number for instance, and I choose and click on any of the results, I am taken to a seemingly random location on the page which presumably contains prior rulings about that search item. I can never seem to find those rulings on the page I'm taken to, however--even after reading dozens of mind-numbing post summaries in both directions from the spot the search takes me to.
What am I doing wrong?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Once you go to the location in the link you clicked on do a ctrl+f and search again for that specific rule number. it will highlight the result. You can then go forwards or backwards to that number in the page. The highlighted result makes it easier for me to see what's what.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Thanks Thomas. Happen to know the counterpart of ctrl+f on a Mac?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 12:23 pm: Edit

Unfortunately no I don't. I know there should be a find option in the browser, but I don't know the shortcut.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Paul - (CMD)-f on a Mac = (CTRL)-f on Windooze. For Firfox, the find box appears at the bottom of the browser window.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 02:36 pm: Edit

Thank you Jason that is it.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 12:29 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Using new search tecniques I found the following ruling apparently from CL 29:

"(314.246) The non-raiding player may excuse any (or all) of his units from rolling to detect the cloaked ship. A cloaked raider may not use (314.28)"

That ruling makes cloaked raiders less powerful than normal ones since the defender can ensure that no ship is attacked at all, and only province disruption can occur.

Can I request an appeal of some sort on that ruling?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 10:59 am: Edit

Nothing in the rules requires a player to use a cloaking device during a raid.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 11:28 am: Edit

Ah. I see. So the only advantage a cloaked ship has is that if no single ship wants to try to discover a cloaked raider (defender refuses to search with ships in hex), the cloaked raider can disrupt the hex--but not perform the alternate attack (314.28). Oh well, at least they can choose not to use the cloak. I don't understand why players are so terrified of giving a bonus to the cloak for raids.
Quite a nerf, but so be it. Thanks Chuck.

---

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 09:36 pm: Edit

I know this isn't the pure question thread, but this isn't a very clear question for that thread, and is for a scenario not rules soo....

CL34
Page 97
Rapid Romulan Development
the NH replaces the KE, year given as 168
However, the NH also replaces the KRC, but the year is 164.

Is one of those years incorrect, or should one of the hulls not be a NH?