From Peter Dmitri:

Q314.241 - Each raid may be countered by one ship (of 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.


In the past version of the game, carrier tugs WERE considered single ship carriers, however at the time they did not count as two ships if unescorted. This is implied in the following statement from Aug 2004 SVC:

SINGLE SHIP CARRIERS
It has long been clear from (515.42) that this rule is used for all single-ship carriers not specifically covered in other rules, those being (515.26) for carrier tugs and (515.27) for auxiliary carriers. This establishes the three categories for normally-unescorted carriers. Rule (515.42) was, however, written back in the time when we did not have a SIT and had to use broad generalities in order to avoid a separate rule for each ship. As we did the SITs, we began to insert “medium carrier” (or whatever) into the notes column for single-ship carriers. The intention was to change (515.42) in Fighter Operations to reflect a more precise escort assignment, with each single-ship carrier covered by (515.21), (515.22), or (515.23). In the rush to publication, we left the original text of (515.42) without fixing this detail or correcting an even worse vaguary in the infamous (515.42) as defined below.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 10:37 am: Edit

Yeah, but tugs don't function as other single ship carriers (and I'm not sure that it is a single ship carrier anymore) because of that funky command slot.

Clearly, it has a ghost slot just like a normal carrier, and not like a single ship carrier. I think that this was to make sure that it couldn't be used as an ultra powerful unit in pursuit or even a normal battle line. But with that extra command slot, I don't see how it can react to a raid when the raid rules prohibit normal (escorted) carriers which also have ghost slots from reacting.

In any case, it won't matter, The Kzintis are doomed! Doomed I tell you!

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 11:15 am: Edit

I am almost positive the Rule Reference declaring a CV tug to be a SSCV still exists.. BUT I cannot find it maybe it was in the Pre-F&E2k10 rulebook but I thought it was in FO.

As I understand it a CV tug is a SSCV with the following exceptions.

If used without escorts it counts as 2 slots in a battleforce.

If it is escorted it may be escorted depending upon the number of Fighters its pod outfit has... and I do not know the threshold but its something like 3 = escort 6=medium 12+=Hvy.

But it could be the reference to CV tugs being SSCV's is no longer in the game. I bet though someone here knows the answer

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 11:44 am: Edit

Pete, I think the Carrier Tug can react, so long as it is unescorted at the time of the raid, because it is still a single ship plus fighters for pinning purposes.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 12:30 pm: Edit

The subtle differences with carrier tugs:

If a tug with CVA pods is unescorted it counts a two slots under (515.261).

If a tug with CV pods is escorted by even one escort it counts a three slots under (515.263).

If a tug with CVA pods is escorted by even one escort it counts a four slots under (515.264).

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 12:42 pm: Edit

Not sure when it would ever be escorted for purposes of raid reaction then.

You would simply get rid of the group (if you had one) at the end of any combat phase. So it would really never be escorted at that time.

Tac Note Turtle!

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 12:44 pm: Edit

Chuck,

Nevermind you made a ruling in Q&A

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Just to be clear, I'm going to follow the ruling, I just don't think it makes sense with this whole "counts as two ships" thing. It's obvious to my limited brain that there's something going on there.

For instance, why wouldn't a CVL without an escort be able to react? It has the same ghost slot.

Turtle, A CV without it's escorts would still be a single ship plus fighters for pinning purposes as well. The issue isn't pinning, it's the fact that ONLY a single ship (or equivalent) for command purposes can react in a raid. Under this ruling I don't see why a CVL couldn't react.

Chuck, the point is in all of your examples, there is not a point where the carrier tug is counted as a single ship equivalent for command purposes same as a carrier.

Okay, I'll go with it, but it cost you a pizza at Denino's. Shame, too, because you were going to like that pizza.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 12:51 pm: Edit

...but if unescorted a carrier tug could be a victim of a raid or E&S team or honor duel...

Escorts still assigned during the raid phase can protect a carrier tug.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 12:53 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

..but if unescorted a carrier tug could be a victim of a raid or E&S team...

Escorts still assigned during the raid phase can protect a carrier tug.

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Pete, See (314.242) which clearly states that carriers which normally have escorts, but currently do not have escorts cannot react to raid movmement.

I agree with Pete there is something off with Carrier Tugs and not being able to react to raids. Afterall if a Carrier Tug can use the Formation Bonus slot as unescoted carrier it should be able to react to raids under the same logic.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 01:01 pm: Edit

Note the final line of (314.242): - "...carriers which normally have escorts but currenlty do not cannot react."

Then:
(515.26) TUGS with carrier pods [mission (509.1B)] or SCS pods‡ [mission (509.1Q)] do not require escorts, but can be escorted.

Standard carriers normally require escorts but carrier tugs do not; carrier tug are just hit with the two command slot penalty if they go solo.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 01:04 pm: Edit

Ted:

Yes - It works both ways so the carrier tug player must choose wisely.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 03:46 pm: Edit

Ah, but Chuck, why can't carriers that have escorts not react? Because they count as more than one ship against command ratings, no?

Keep it up and you are going to lose that great dinner I was going to buy you at Origins.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Because that is the way the rules are written. Standard carriers NORMALLY require escorts but for carrier tugs they have the option to operate without them (but count as two slots when they do). (It was determined that single carrier tugs were to powerful and thus were required to eat two slots if operating single.)

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 05:17 pm: Edit

aha, and if they are so powerful then why can they react to raids?

Right now you are jeopardizing the college fund I was going to give you for Grant.

Seriously, it's no problem.

By Andrew Bruno (Admeeral) on Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - 12:04 am: Edit

From Q&A-

---

Quote:

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?

---

---

Quote:

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 03:59 am: Edit


Q(450.13) In three parts-

Can Minor Shipyards be built at a captured major planet?
At a SB in captured territory?
At a major planet or SB in Annexed territory?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
(450.13) Location: Minor shipyards can be built at any
major planet or at any starbase of the owning player not in
the capital hex, even in an inactive fleet area. Smaller
planets and bases cannot support these facilities. They
cannot be built in foreign territory.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDS: An empire may build minor shipyards in annexed territory under (448.2).

---

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, March 14, 2013 - 07:01 pm: Edit

A close reading of the advanced rules seems to say pretty unequivocably that there is the possibility of a raid target hex being 7 hexes away from the origin hex.

Basically the procedure is.

1. Declare Origin hex
2. Use raid movement to move 2 (on map raid) 6(normal ships) or 7 (F/X ships) hexes to the attack hex. This movement is unpinnable
3. Choose any hex adjacent to the attack hex as the target hex and pick an eligible target in that hex

The only hexes that cannot be picked are offmap and neutral hexes.

Picking a target hex that is 7 away from the origin hex does not mean you are moving too far, even though later rules say you are considered to have entered the hex (and do enter the hex). Those rules deal with the implications of violating inactive fleet areas vis a vis reaction possibilites and neutral violations and such. None of this is normal movement, the special raid rules even state that the whole idea of having units in the raid pool means their location is rather unknown. Raid movement is not normal movement under the rules, and it shouldn't be considered so. If a force moves 6 in operational movement is it then precluded from moving a 7th hex when it retreats, and it is certainly possible a retreat moves it 7 hexes from where it started (or more with Fighting Retreat).

The rules as written with reasonable understanding of what adjacent mean and looking at the "entered" clauses as being clarifications towards inactive fleet areas the intention seems plain.

Lastly, when considering what Raid movement means I submit a logical construction for thought. I have always thought the Raid movement was not evey any sort of movement in the sense at all... under the hood it represents some amount of movement combined with some sort of "location allocation". Units in the Raid Pool are sort of smeared out over your supply grid in a sense (Quantum Mechanics anyone!?). The raid movement represents putting the Raiders where they are for raiding purposes. That they might then move a hex into the target hex as part of the raid is no more strange than that a unit might retreat at the end of a combat and move a 7th hex. Also consider if a raider finds itself pinned in an attack hex, it cannot raid the target. Since raid movement is unpinnable but this movement is pinnable.. it suggests the two are certainly not the same thing.

I hope the new rules for special raids just do away with this oddity. But I strongly believe the wording and intent of the original special raid rules allow the target hex to be 7 away from the origin hex

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 12:50 pm: Edit

Eric,

On your plasma question. You cannot RCR a captured ship then use it in battle, as a captured ship cannot be used in battle period until its converted. There is a list somewhere of what you can do with a captured ship. I believe if your in the middle of the battle where you capped the ship you can only turn it in for + 1 Die Roll Mod on a round of combat.

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Yeah, I wasn't real sure, but you can use it crippled as is during the same battle (305.25), so RCR made sense (a make-shift thing)... then, to use it somewhere else, it'd have to be converted.

But this is a KRM, and a great ship, so it'll use option 6 and be a gift to the Gorns for entering in the war this turn.... plus, they can fix it for cheaper with field repairs and RCR, and it can sometimes use its ability twice in a turn.

Still tho, based on the way the rules feel to me, its a romulan ship so can get the 5 ep for the price of 4 repairs, and RCR says nothing about captures so it makes sense that a fed SB could repair a 5 point romulan ship for 4 EP in RCR, and it could then be used in that *battle*... any other battle requiring the 3 EP conversion charge.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Eric

I think you might have missed 420.423 - the 5 Points of repairs costs you 5 repair points (so 2.5 Ep's) and 'owning empire' seems to infer you can only do it with your own bases - and not allied!

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Eric,

I was addressing only the repair by RCR and fight business. The whole can you repair a Romulan Cruiser at a Fed BATS is unknown. In general the issue is that a BATS should be able to repair a crippled Cruiser... well for the Western Empires that works... for the Eastern though their Cruiser units are 10/5 unrepairable by BATS. So there is an exception to allow a BATS to repair a Cruiser. I would THINK the logic would apply to any BATS... i.e. the "Bats cab repair a cruiser" sticks to the ship not to the BATS.. but it is worth a FEAR/FEDS ruling (if one has not already been made)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 03:44 pm: Edit

FEDS has already clarified the rule in Q&A.

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Not totally answered... basically here is a process:

Battle, Gorns vs Romulans, at a Gorn Starbase.
Round 1, Gorns capture a KRC

Options in regard to this:
Option 3. Leave ship out of battle, repair and convert it later for normal use.
Option 5. Use the ship in battle normally (it is crippled as that is how you get a captured ship)

Based on strict reading of the rules, there is nothing under the RCR rules that prevent you from using the KRC, and in fact, only needing to pay 2.5 EP to fix it using Gorn RCR.

After the battle hex is resolved however, it is quite clear that the ship will have to be converted for further use.

So the questionable thing here is, can you RCR a captured ship? I can't find anything that says you cannot.

Thinking about this, I think any ships captured between the Kzinti/Klingons should only be like 1-2 EP to convert, as they use the same equipment. Same between Rom/Gorn/ISC (though PPD ships captured would still be subject to the 3 EP conversion by Rom/Gorn). I think I'll go propose a new rule that people will quickly ignore as too cumbersome

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 06:46 pm: Edit

Eric, under captured ships, you can't use them full strength in combat unless they have been converted. You can use them as they are in a battle line or as a modifier to your BIR until you convert them to your technology. This can only happen in your economic phase.