(I know, I'm pushing. At least it is with the best intent!
) | By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 10:22 pm: Edit |
That is a question for the author, Chuck Strong. It probably needs to be clarified.
| By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 06:29 pm: Edit |
At a guess, I'd say that the KE/NH should be KE/FH which would allow the WE/KE (SP/FH)cnversions listed in the Fleets and PWC to match...
| By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 12:21 pm: Edit |
I understand the ruling about cloaked raiders Chuck, and agree it fixes the abuse you mentioned.
Disrupting a province without interference isn't terribly valuable since you could do that anyway without a cloaked raider just by raiding an empty hex with a powerful ship so that no nearby enemies want to intercept and fight you. This means essentially no advantage conferred by the cloak in raiding although I'm sure others will not see it that way.
Fair enough on the ruling though.
| By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 02:48 pm: Edit |
Quote:Q450.19 Is the Hydran CW shipyard capable of building a TR or HR, or must they specify TR or HR upon building the shipyard, or does that 1 CW shipyard make both?
Quote:In the case of 'or' choices the Klingons and Romulans must specify... The Hydrans could build either type in the same shipyard...
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 03:23 pm: Edit |
Quote:By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 01:18 pm: Edit
Q450.19 Is the Hydran CW shipyard capable of building a TR or HR, or must they specify TR or HR upon building the shipyard, or does that 1 CW shipyard make both?
Q450.19 Same thing as above, but with the Orion "CR or BR"
Thanks
| By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 03:56 pm: Edit |
Thomas. I thought just the opposite about the Orions not based upon SSD similarity but because the Orions seem more of a special order outfit to me... i.e it depends on which boss put the order in for the ship this season! In any case the Orion question needs an answer as the rules are silent!
| By Andrew Bruno (Admeeral) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 11:09 pm: Edit |
Edit: Dup
| By Andrew Bruno (Admeeral) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 11:13 pm: Edit |
Chuck-
Re: CL 46 (LDR in F&E) 714.22, where can the LDR build their minor ship yards if one cannot build them in a capital hex and are not able to produce bases larger than a BTX?
May allies build SBs in LDR space?
| By Andrew Bruno (Admeeral) on Friday, February 22, 2013 - 04:42 am: Edit |
What happens if the LDR has no on map bases? Is there a "vanquished" rule? What about their Diplomats? What if they manage to preserve a MB+tug but no "original" space?
(I know, I'm pushing. At least it is with the best intent!)
| By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 04:21 pm: Edit |
Discussion of magical conversion of fighters from Q&A suggested that 2 FCR factors would become 4 CVB factors.
I replied (and moved post from Q&A to here)...
The astronomical cost of the CVB fighters would make it appropriate for a magical conversion of fighters (i.e., create more fighters from nowhere), but alas, the rules are clear. A factor is a factor. 4 CVB factors are replaced by 4 FCR factors.
(Besides, the alliance has his math wrong. If 6 regular factors becomes 8 CVB factors, then it works out to 1 becomes 1.33. He would need to use 3 FCR factors, not 2, to replace the 4.)
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 04:26 pm: Edit |
I agree with Kevin H.
The ambiguity in the rule here is the term "magically become." I think it's reasonable to read that as some kind of transformation that results in extra fighter factors. However, I don't think that was the intent. I think the outrageous cost of the CVB is just that - outrageous, just to get a single squad of 8 FF.
We'll see, I guess.
| By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 04:28 pm: Edit |
Ted, you and Kevin are correct. The only "magical" part of the transformation is that basically the CVB can receive fighter factor transfers and field a squadron of 8 factors. There's no multiplication or addition of additional fighter factors as part of that transformation.
| By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 04:51 pm: Edit |
I got the impression reading the rule that this was those "dilligent staff workers" thinking ahead again and when pulled to go to the FCR, they'd actually been F-15s all along ... same way pods get to the right spots, et. al. logistical minutia.
| By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 05:06 pm: Edit |
A fighter factor is just that, a fighter factor. 6xF-14 = 8xF-18 = 8 fighter factors.
Note, not FEAR talking.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 05:10 pm: Edit |
Mike C, I thought so, too, but when you read the rule it really could be interpreted the other way since it uses the words "magically become" - implying some kind of actual transformation to an improved fighter. Hence, I think an actual FEAR ruling is in order, and of course the rule will need to be updated when the expansion is updated.
| By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 05:22 pm: Edit |
It has been ruled on previously as such, hence my non-FEAR reply.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 06:21 pm: Edit |
Really? I wonder why I couldn't find it... I'm stupid I guess. I wish the Discuss keyword search function was better...
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 06:55 pm: Edit |
Chuck speaking here - not FEDS...
A fighter factor is fighter factor except when the rules say otherwise.
If someone can prove otherwise in the rules then they need to cite such rules.
| By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 08:48 pm: Edit |
ATM there are two spots to look for -
The Federation F111 (525.12) is entirely separate from other fighters (being the Fed PF analogue)
Replacing heavy fighters from non-heavy fighter sources, except FCRs (FCRs can replace H (530.121-CL36), V [532.121] or normal factors)
Tug pods specificaly for a type of fighter (H/F111/A20) replace that fighter type only...
So a factor is a factor except above...
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 08:49 pm: Edit |
Chuck, the assertion is that 302.352 provides the enabling rule: "and magically becoming the better types."
The idea is that transferring 1 "normal" fighter to a CVB, CVA, or SCS will cause it to magically become an F-15/F-14, or whatever. The result is that said 1 fighter becomes 1.33 fighter factors as a result of "magically becoming" the better type.
My understanding, as well as the folks who have replied so far, is that the "magically becoming" is only a record keeping savings tool. Thus, 8 FF of "normal" fighters "magically becomes" 6 actual of the special fighters having a total of 8 FFs when transferred to a CVB, for example.
The rule is sufficiently ambiguous that, if not done already, it should be updated to prevent argument.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 08:56 pm: Edit |
Actually, the rule says in effect a factor is a factor. If an FCR transfers 3 factors to a CVB they are three factors not four. It takes eight factors NOT six to refill a CVB.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 10:07 pm: Edit |
The Fed CVB fighter factor refill issue has been resolved by ADB action and is now closed.
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, March 06, 2013 - 04:26 pm: Edit |
Q302.332 States that three ship equivalents of fighters and/or PFs may be included in a given battleforce. These equivalents do not count against the command rating of the flagship if their carrier/PF tender is included in the battleforce. (502.93) increases this limit to 4 under the third way if all squadrons are from the empire with the third way (typically Federation). (518.46) allows the addition of 3 (E2) or 6 (E3) fighter factors provided by the appropriate SWAC perfoming this mission. If the carrier with the 4th or 5th squadron of 3 or 6 fighter factors is included in the battleforce and and the appropriate SWAC is performing the Fighter Control Mission (518.46) does the fighter squadron count against the command rating of the flagship? This issues arises from the wording of (518.46) which appears to be in conflict with the first sentence of (302.332).
Relavent rules copied below:
Quote:(302.332) Fighters in the same Battle Force as their carrier do not count against the command limits (501.3). Fighters operating independently of their carrier (501.4) count against the Battle Force as ship equivalents (501.9). See (302.352) for special Federation exceptions.
A: No more than three ship equivalents of fighters can be included in any Battle Force, including those within (302.35) and outside of the command limits. [See (502.93) Federation Third Way; also see (501.9). See (514.0) for Swarms‡.] This limit does not apply to fighters assigned to PDUs and bases in the same Battle Force as their base.
Quote:(502.93) FIGHTER LIMIT: As an aspect of the new command technology, the Federation is able (starting in Y181) to deploy four fighter squadrons in a Battle Force rather than the usual three. (If any PFs or fighters from allied empires are included, this ability is lost.) If the fourth squadron is an “independent” squadron sent to the Battle Force by a carrier or base which is not in the Battle Force, it does not count against the command limits. See (518.46)‡ for an exception.
Quote:(518.46) Fighter Control Mission: One (and only one) SWAC in each battle force could be assigned to this mission in a given battle round. The effect is to allow an increase in Federation fighter strength above the normal limit of three squadrons (or of four squadrons in the "third way" rules). The extra fighters could be from a carrier in the battle force or a carrier outside the force that sends fighters into it (in which case they would count against command limits). The effect of an E-2 SWAC using this mission is to allow up to three additional fighter factors; an E3 SWAC from Advanced Operations would allow up to six additional fighter factors. (Note: the limit is three or six factors and this does not allow players to use 4 or 8 or 9 or 10 factors of F-14s, F-111s, or A20s.
| By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, March 06, 2013 - 07:57 pm: Edit |
Turtle, (518.46) 'The extra fighters could be from a carrier in the battle force or a carrier outside the force that sends fighters into it (in which they would count against command limits).
If independent, they count, otherwise they don't...
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, March 06, 2013 - 10:14 pm: Edit |
Stewart, that's the issue, because of the word or in (518.46) the rule muddies the way they are counted.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |