Excellent, that's what I thought but I wanted to be ultra sure.

By Gary Quick (Northquick) on Friday, March 01, 2013 - 04:06 pm: Edit

We have had a situation come up in our game (AATE), and a simplified situation is presented below to get at the issues.

In a battle involving:
Fed: 2xPDU, CVS(no fighters)+ECL+FFE, FV(no fighters)+FFE
Coalition: irrelevant, but lots

If the coalition do 25 points of damage and direct on the PDUs:

a) Federation cripples FFE. 12 homeless fighters = 6 land on CVS, 4 land on FV. Carry = -2.
Correct?

b) Federation cripple FV. 12 homeless fighters = 6 land on CVS, 2 land on (FV). Carry = -4.
Correct?

c) Federation cripple CVS. carry -3. Then, 12 homeless fighters = 3 land on (CVS), 4 land on FV. Carry = -8.
Correct?

Question = If the Federation were to retreat after the battle round, and selects the following options, what happens?

a:
i) -2 points carryover to pursuit battle.

ii) no points carry-over, because fighters could have been taken as losses rather than FFE.

b:
i) -4 points treated as involuntary per 308.23. All applied as involuntary points under 308.242 and so -4 is applied to pursuit battle

ii) FV voluntarily crippled, so effectively a buffer of 2 fighters lost was "voluntary" (as FFE could be taken instead). Therefore, the max limit of -3 voluntary points can be carried over to pursuit battle.

c:
i) -3 points count as voluntary, and -5 count as involuntary. Under 308.24, up to -3 voluntary and up to -6 involuntary points (including voluntary) can be carried over.
-6 to pursuit battle

ii) 3 of the fighter losses actually count as “voluntary” due to crippling of CVS, making only 2 losses really involuntary
-5 to pursuit battle

iii) Fighters could have been taken to fulfill losses, and so all carryover counts as “voluntary”
-3 to pursuit battle

iv) Fighters could have been taken to fulfill all losses, therefore no carryover can be applied
0 to pursuit battle

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 01, 2013 - 04:12 pm: Edit

Q308.23 Is it possible to create involuntary minus points when an enemy has used directed damage to kill friendly PDUs, but where also enough damage remains after directing on the PDUs to fully absorb all fighter losses?

Other relevant rules: 308.21 (especially the "NOTE"), 308.22, and 302.53.

Specific situation: The Romluns attack a Federation planet with 2*PDU with a F15 marker. The Federation defends with fewer ships than the Romulans in order to do damage to the Romulans, but with no real expectation of winning the hex. Several rounds of combat have already taken place, leaving casualties on both sides. On the last round of combat before retreat, the Federation puts up a line that includes a monitor and a CVS carrier group whose fighters have already been lost in combat. A second CVS in the "reserves", not on the line, is also empty of fighters. The PDUs have all 14 fighters remaining (remember the F15 marker). On this round, the Romulans do 38 damage. The Romulans use 20 of those damage points and directed damage to kill both PDUs. Thus, 18 damage remains and 14 fighters are homeless.

The Federation resolves the 18 damage as follows: self kill the MON (9 damage), cripple the CVS on the line (+8 = 17 damage), and apply 1 damage to devastate the planet (+1 = 18 damage). There are now 14 homeless fighters that die by operation of rule 302.53. Of those 14 homeless fighters, 9 will find facilities in the empty bays of the crippled CVS and the other, uncrippled, CVS. Five minus points remain.

The Federation player announces retreat; Romulans pursue and catch. The Federation player asserts that 308.23, first sentence provides that the -5 are all "involuntary" minus points, so that by 308.242 all -5 will apply in pursuit. The Romulan player disagrees, citing that the second sentence of 308.23 provides that if a carrier (not just the one that was directed) is voluntarily crippled, then the lost fighters do not generate minus points. Thus, the Romulan player asserts that NO minus points are generated at all. The Federation player believes the context of the 2nd sentence in view of the 1st sentence means that the carrier or PFT in question is the one directed upon.

In the alternative, the Romulan player asserts that, in view of 308.21 (NOTE), the Federation player created the minus points in the knowledge that his actions would generate minus points, and thus they are voluntary. Voluntary minus points are limited to -3 in pursuit per 308.241. The Federation player counters that 308.21, first sentence controls as the fighter losses "resulted" from the Romulans directing on the PDUs. The Romulan player then reasserts that the 2nd sentence of that rule would control because the CVS was voluntarily crippled.

In view of this situation, the following sub-questions apply:

Does the Federation player generate NO minus points because of the operation of 308.23, 2nd sentence?

Does the Federation player generate 3 minus points on pursuit because they were "voluntary."

Does the Federation player generate 5 minus points on pursuit because they were "involuntary."

Ruling respectfully requested, thank you.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, March 02, 2013 - 07:22 am: Edit

Chuck wrote:

---

Quote:

The general rule for limited scout production is listed in (432.41).

Production limitations for PFTs are specifically addressed in (432.42); unless specifically cited elsewhere in the rules, the substitution of a ship for a PFT does NOT count against the the scout substitution limit in (432.41).

Production limitations for survey ships are specifically addressed in (542.11); unless specifically cited elsewhere in the rules, the substitution of a ship for a survey ship does NOT count against the the scout substitution limit in (432.41).

Production limitations for drone/scout ships are specifically addressed in (432.44); unless specifically cited elsewhere in the rules, the substitution of a ship for a drone/scout ship DOES count against the the scout substitution limit in (432.41).

FEDS SENDS

---

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, March 02, 2013 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Turtle, both are under (440.6) in FO

ACSs count as a scout and heavy fighter carrier (ie PFT limit), once per year any means...
DCSs count as a PFT (once per year)...
CSVs count as a PFT/heavy fighter carrier...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, March 03, 2013 - 11:12 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Q: (542.11) states that a Survey Ship may be built as new construction for 5 EPs more than the build cost of the base hull. (Fed SR would cost 13 EPs + 3EPs for an additional survey slot if this was not a replacement for the CVL below) It also states that SRVs (Fed CVL) would add the cost of fighters and count against the medium carrier limits.
Do Survey Ships count against the limit of new construction scouts? I.E. I build a SR to send Off Map to replace the CVL that is on Map when the Federations goes to Limited War or The Klingons Invade on Turn 7.

A: It is not the survey ship or the scout that is the restriction. It is the diamond symbol which is scout channels that is the limitation. So, yes, they do count with new construction. Conversions do not count. (432.41)

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Q302.352 Do fighters transferred to a Federation CVB from other Federation fighter facilities (another "normal" carrier, FCR, etc.) actually *create* additional fighters when they "magically become" the superior CVB types?

Situation: On round 1 of combat the Federation fields a line having a CVB carrier group. He has two normal FCRs in the hex. He resolves four damage points by killing four CVB fighters. He then replaces *two* fighters from the FCR onto the CVB. Citing 302.352, the Federation player asserts that these two fighters "magically become" the better fighter type. In other words, the Federation player says that he has lost two *actual* fighters. Two *actual* fighters are transferred from the FCRs and magically become the better fighter types, so now the CVB has 8 fighter factors again instead of 6.

Over, say, 6 combat rounds, the Federation player could rinse and repeat this procedure. In doing so, the Federation player effectively doubles his FCR capacity from 12 to 24, because each time he transfers fighters from the FCRs, he's in essence creating two free fighter factors due to the magical transformation.

The Coalition player asserts that this proposition is not the intent of the "magically become" provision of the rule, but rather the intent of the rule is simply to prevent the Federation player from having to track the different superior fighter types on the CVB, CVA, and SCS, in addition to heavy fighters and F-111s. Thus, the Coalition player asserts that what *actually* happens is that the Federation player must transfer four fighter factors from the FCRs to account for the four fighter factor losses on the CVB. The "magical" transformation is that the Federation player doesn't have to track fighter types, but the Federation player does not get to dramatically increase the amount of damage he can absorb through this rule.

Ruling requested, please. Thank you.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Coalition player is right. Four factors of one type become four factors of the other type. You do not gain more factors out of nowhere for free.

The magic is on the SFB scale when 8 actual F18s from the FCR (4 factors) become 6 actual F14s (still 4 factors) or whatever fighter type the CVB has, I think F14s.

By Gary Quick (Northquick) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 03:17 pm: Edit

They aren't "for free". The cost has already been paid as part of the astronomical CVB conversion cost.

The FCR carriers fighters.

432.5, it's own special rule, goes out of it's way to state the the CVB carriers the same number of fighters, it just uses superior F15s.

302.352 allows for transformation of fighter types (exception for A-20s)

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 03:49 pm: Edit

(Moved to Q&A discussion board)

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Reminder that argument/discussion on Q&A matters should be in the respective topic to avoid cluttering this one.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Please move discussions of Q&A issues to the Q&A Discussions topic.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 09:02 pm: Edit

Official answer by game designer:

A factor is a factor. If an FCR transfers 3 factors to a CVB they are still 3 factors and do NOT magically become 4 factors.

A theory that "factors equal to 50% of a CVS become 50% of a CVB" is pseudo-Vulcan logic at best.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, March 06, 2013 - 04:25 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 Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, March 06, 2013 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Q502.61 Do PDU's that are not yet deployed receive free Fighters/PFs, or must they be deployed on a planet during the time of free PF deployment in order get them?

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, March 06, 2013 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Eric, (502.63)

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, March 06, 2013 - 09:45 pm: Edit

Ok, guess I wasn't reading it all right. Thanks.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 09:26 am: Edit

Q314.241 - Each raid may be countered by one ship (or full ship-equivalent of fighters or PFs) moving by Reaction Movement (within all normal rules therof to the Raid Target Hex).

314.242 - A Carrier group (or other group) could not react (as it is more than one ship) but might (if allowed by rules) detach an escort (not the carrier) to send to counter the raid or send its fighters/PFs as an independent reaction force. The cannot be required to do this. Single-ship carriers could be used to react; carriers which normally have escorts but currenlty do not cannot react.

515.26 - Tugs with carrier pods do not require escorts but can be escorted.

515.261 - Unescorted carrier tugs count as two ships for command rating purposes.

Okay, so the question is, can a carrier tug react to a raid? I think the answer is no, as it counts as two ships for command purposes, but we'd like some clarification on this.

=============

FEDS:

It depends on the escort status of the carrier tug at the time of the raid.

Unlike other standard carriers which normally have escorts, carrier tugs do not require escorts under (515.26).

Ruling:

A carrier tug may react to a raid if it does not have assigned escorts at the time of the raid.

A carrier tug with assigned escorts CANNOT react to a raid but its escorts may using (314.242).

(Note that escorts assigned in the previous Combat Phase remain assigned as long as they are in the same hex as the carrier or other escorted ship.)

By Jose R. Barreto (Jbarreto) on Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 09:39 am: Edit

Q540.34 If a Klingon diplomatic ship is destroyed during the raid phase while deployed on a friendly capital, does the diplomatic team on-board roll for survival as per 540.132?

==========

FEDS:

The fate of Klingon diplomats assigned specifically to Klingon Diplomatic Cruisers (D7N, D5N, DWN) is uniquely tied to the fate of their assigned diplomatic cruiser. If the diplomatic cruiser is destroyed then each diplomatic unit assigned rolls one die under (540.132). If the diplomatic cruiser is interned then each diplomatic unit assigned is also interned.

Note: It is assumed that raids against Klingon Diplomatic Cruisers are timed to occur at a time when the diplomat is aboard their assigned cruiser.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Q513.112 How many free fighter factors does it take to equip a SAV? The SIT build cost for the SAV is 2+6. This is important as the fighters on a SAV or Base cost 1 per factor as opposed to "standard carriers" where the cost is 2 per fighter factor(432.21). Bases are (432.22). Also note (432.242) for the use of free fighter factors by the Hydrans where 1 Free Fighter Factor equals 2 Fighter Factors on hybrid Hydran ships.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 08:07 pm: Edit

Turtle, a factor is a factor (except Hydran hydrids), so all 6 for an SAV (half of an LAV's factor)...

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 10:30 pm: Edit

Can I request an appeal for the last part of the ruling (540.132) or get a clarification please?

This ruling makes Klingon DIPs on diplomatic cruisers easier to kill than regular Diplomats.

The situation in question is a Klingon D5N at Romulus (but could be worse if it were a D7N). Note there is also a Lyran DIP on the planet Romulus. If the D5N is crippled by an E&S raid (2-5 on 2 dice for success), then destroyed by a special raid (needing 2 damage=automatic), either (33.3%) the DIP survives and is placed all the way away from the Romulan capital with the nearest Klingon ship (possibly needing two or more turns to return), or (66.6%) the raiding ships capture the Klingon DIP! Live or captured, the Klingons and Romulans lose (540.22) EPs for one or more turns from that diplomat.

Note that if the Alliance went after the Lyran DIP, they would have to attempt Assassination (2-3 on 2 dice for success) and even then would not capture the DIP but only kill it. Failure leaves the Lyran DIP in place earning EPs for both races via (540.22).

This difference means it is in the Klingon player's best interest to un-convert diplomatic cruisers and use diplomats normally to avoid their easier capture by the enemy.

I request that the Prime Team with the diplomat aboard a diplomatic cruiser be allowed to protect the ship from E&S raids as well as the DIP from assassination. Surely a diplomatic cruiser has heightened security (all Klingon crew, etc.)?

I also request clarification that any raid cannot capture a DIP (or anything else of course).

Alternately, please allow DIPs aboard Klingon diplomatic cruisers to be assumed to be planetside during raids to avoid this added vulnerability.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 10:36 pm: Edit

Q: 313.22 and 523.38

If a scout is reduced to zero EW points because of enemy X-ships via (523.38) and the friendly battle force contains no other scouts, does the scout still count as a "scout" for (313.22)?

In other words, the scout in battle force A is reduced to zero by (523.38). Battle force B has one EW. Does the zero EW scout in battle force A count as a "scout" for (313.22), thus preventing a -1 shift?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, March 11, 2013 - 07:38 am: Edit

Q502.63 (502.63) states that colonies do not receive free PFs during the period of initial PF deployment on bases and planets. Can a player purchase PFs for PDUs previously deployed colonies beginning on PF2 for a given empire? Obviously a PDU with PFs could be added to a colony after PF2.

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Monday, March 11, 2013 - 05:24 pm: Edit

Q450.2 Can a race, who have lost all their space and capital, produce a new medium shipyard in non-home territory or allied off-map areas?

(450.13) Specifies that MINOR shipyards must be in home territory.
(450.22) Specifies that MEDIUM shipyards use the rules from (511.3)
(511.3) does say that to recreate a new *capital*, it must be in original territory, and (450.2) says to use the same rules, but (511.3) doesn't distinguish between a MEDIUM and CAPITAL shipyard.

For example, if the Hydrans decided to not retreat to the old colonies, but instead captured a planet in Coalition space, could they make that their new "home"?

Or the Tholians, if they lose all of their space, with no hope of returning it, could they create a new medium shipyard in some other location?

Or the Romulans, perhaps they could make a new capital at Tholia instead.

In all of these situations, I do see how a capital could not be reformed as the population isn't there, but surely these races can build new shipyards and try to retake their home even if they no longer have access to their "home territory", which changes all the time throughout history.

I am pretty sure that the answer based on printed rules is "no, they can't build any kind of shipyard outside of home space", and if so I request a rethinking of that answer. Historically sure, it makes sense, but when fighting battles that aren't completely historical there are multiple situations that can come up where a race can lose its capital and on-map area, have no off-map areas, but still have a considerable fleet. The Orion Enclave optional rule can see that happening with them, or the easily defeated Tholians when attacked before they even get a turn, or even the Hydrans if they got cut off from the Old Colonies but yet somehow captured an area in Coalition space. Heck, the Romulans could, instead of rebuilding their capital, just build a new medium shipyard with a partial grid at Tholia and hang around quite a bit more.