Q320.334 in view of 320.35 and 320.311. Can a non-fast/non-X ship special drone/fighter/PF special raider hit a target hex that is 7 hexes away from the origin hex? These two rules, read together, clearly indicate that special raiding ships actually enter the target hex. Thus, it would seem that a non-fast/non-X special raider could not actually hit a target hex that is 7 hexes from the origin hex, because they cannot move 7 hexes. However, opponent 2 argues that 320.311 provides that the raiders start in the origin hex, move up to 6 hexes to the attack hex, and THEN selects a target hex that is adjacent the attack hex. Thus, the special raider IS entitled to 7 hexes total of range (the 6 moved to the attack hex plus the one adjacent target hex). Opponent 1 says that can't be right because non-fast/non-X ships can't move 7 hexes to enter the hex; thus the "adjacent" target hex must be still within the 6 hex range from the origin hex.

Ruling is needed - soon if possible. Ruling determines whether two FRDs go down over a cripple park that's 7 hexes from an enemy supply point, and that can make a big difference to how the turn plays out.

I know the special raid rules are being revised and updated. However, that process appears to be extremely slow, and in the meantime games not in playtest must use the original special raid rules.

Thank you.

[EDIT] Note that it is still possible for both the "adjacent" target hex and the attack hex to be within 6 hexes of the origin hex. However, the ambiguity remains whether the term "adjacent" allows the 7 hex of movement for special raiders, despite the normal case that such a ship could not move 7 hexes during operational movement or normal raid movement to enter the target hex.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 14, 2013 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Ted:

FEDS is unable to address until Saturday; I'd like to assist but cannot conduct research time needed at the moment.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, March 14, 2013 - 07:34 pm: Edit

Q320.334 in view of 320.35 and 320.311. Can a non-fast/non-X ship special drone/fighter/PF special raider hit a target hex that is 7 hexes away from the origin hex? These two rules, read together, clearly indicate that special raiding ships actually enter the target hex. Thus, it would seem that a non-fast/non-X special raider could not actually hit a target hex that is 7 hexes from the origin hex, because they cannot move 7 hexes. However, opponent 2 argues that 320.311 provides that the raiders start in the origin hex, move up to 6 hexes to the attack hex, and THEN selects a target hex that is adjacent the attack hex. Thus, the special raider IS entitled to 7 hexes total of range (the 6 moved to the attack hex plus the one adjacent target hex). Opponent 1 says that can't be right because non-fast/non-X ships can't move 7 hexes to enter the hex; thus the "adjacent" target hex must be still within the 6 hex range from the origin hex.

Note that it is still possible for both the "adjacent" target hex and the attack hex to be within 6 hexes of the origin hex. However, the ambiguity remains whether the term "adjacent" allows the 7 hex of movement for special raiders, despite the normal case that such a ship could not move 7 hexes during operational movement or normal raid movement to enter the target hex.

Ruling is requested, please. Ruling determines whether two FRDs go down over a cripple park that's 7 hexes from an enemy supply point, and that can make a big difference to how the turn plays out.

A320.334 The procedure is for a special raid (drone, fighter, or PF) using (320.3) for the raid which is summarized in the opening paragraph “To conduct a Special Raid, ships will move from their Origin Hex to an Attack hex and conduct the raid against an enemy in an adjacent Target Hex.”

The questioned “extra hex” of movement is not for the ships, but for the special long range drones used for such a raid or the fighters/PFs striking from their respective carriers/PFTs. The ships move up to the allowance provided in (320.311) to an “Attack Hex” this is the limit of the ship’s movement. The “Target Hex”, (320.33) is then selected from any hex adjacent to the “Attack Hex”. As noted, such a raid on a “Target Hex” is considered to be entered by an enemy. This could activate an inactive fleet or violate neutrality and should be considered by the raiding player before performing the raid.

In summary: The “Target Hex” is not an extra hex of ship movement, but the location units tied to the raiding ship move to for the actual attack on an enemy unit.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 10:36 am: Edit

FEAR, thank you for the quick ruling. Much appreciated (though I have to say it unexpectedly bones me pretty hard!)

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Q420.423 Plasma Repair. Can a Gorn/Rom/ISC ship, requiring exactly 5 points to repair, also be repaired at allied shipyards or is plasma repair an ability of bases and not a feature of the upgunned plasma ships?

---

Quote:

(420.423) Plasma Repair Exception: A crippled Gorn, Romulan, or ISC ship which requires exactly five Repair Points can be repaired at a battle station of the owning empire (paying for all five Repair Points) as the only repair done by that BATS on that turn.

---

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 05:06 pm: Edit

It wasn't that clear, as Option 5 (305.25), clearly states that a captured ship *CAN* be used in battle in that same hex. So, a captured ship *can* be used in battle *before* it undergoes a conversion, and that couldn't be any more clear. So, the unclear part is if that ship can use RCR, perhaps even still paying the 3 additional EP, during the same combat phase it was captured and then be used.

And a clarification on Q420.423, *owning empire* changes when a ship is captured, so if the Gorns capture a KRC it is then owned by the Gorns, and the Gorns can repair its 5 damage at one of their BATS for 4 EP correct?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 05:11 pm: Edit

Q526.35 If a FCR is crippled during the combat phase either by directed damage or the owning player's choice are any remaing fighters in storage lost at that time?

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Q(302.775) - In the event that a “fighting retreat” enters a hex with a base (or a non-base unit which is treated as a base for combat purposes) special cases apply as follows: A: If the hex contains a friendly base (e.g., starbase, mobile base) or planet, the conditions and penalties of a fighting retreat do not apply after the first approach battle. The retreating units are merged with the friendly units at the base/planet and conduct future rounds of combat normally (i.e., a fighting retreat just turned into a normal retreat).

Does this mean that by not taking the approach battle that the fighting retreat force never has to have BIR zero for the first round of combat?

Or is there always at least one round that the fighting retreat force has to fight at BIR 0?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 16, 2013 - 11:19 am: Edit

FEDS CLARIFICATION

Reference Rule: (305.2) CAPTURING SHIPS

Captured enemy ships cannot be repaired using (425.3) RAPID COMBAT REPAIR if using (305.25) OPTION 5 with the captured enemy ship.

Enemy ships that are captured, properly converted, and repaired under (305.23) OPTION 3 may use (425.3) RAPID COMBAT REPAIR during future combat rounds.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, March 16, 2013 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Q504.31 If an Orion pirate ship has been leased and is in a battle force that suffers damage exceeding all factors of non orion ships, do the left points carry over as plus points or must damage be resolved if possible on the Orion ship?

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 11:41 am: Edit

This is a question on the sequence of play, so I'm not sure which number I should have used.

Defender is at a planet, attacker approaches and offers approach. Defender declines, and defender then chooses to retreat.

I am pretty sure that approach battles count as a round of combat, I've read it in various Q&A's, and it is in the rules in 302.617 #1 (though this is a rule that doesn't apply here).

So since a declined approach counts as combat, and any combat ends with retreat options for both attacker and defender, can the defender choose to retreat when they fail to accept any approach battle?

I would think not based on the spirit of the rules, but can find nothing in the rules that seem to confirm that, and in fact since a round of combat is in a declined approach, it really seems that a unit defending a planet has the advantage of being able to retreat with no combat at all.

This does correlate with a situation I had with 2 adjacent bases, where the defender could be at either one before the attacker due to retreat timings, and in this case it seems to make sense as if the attacker retreats, the defender could choose to retreat first and force the attacker into another battle.

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 04:11 pm: Edit

deleted by author

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 06:21 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.

First posted March 10th. Two weeks to go until it becomes important to our game.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 06:22 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?

Also first posted March 10th. This will become important to our game it 3 days.

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

Reference (540.0): Klingon Diplomatic Ships

---

Quote:

(540.34) STATUS: Klingon D7Ns, DWNs, and D5Ns are considered to be "ship with a diplomatic team on board" for these rules. The diplomatic team cannot be separated from the ship.

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 06:56 am: Edit

Paul, the answer is here. You will need to do a search for 313.22.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Thank you Thomas. Apologies for not finding that in my own search.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 06:24 pm: Edit

Q(302.775) - In the event that a “fighting retreat” enters a hex with a base (or a non-base unit which is treated as a base for combat purposes) special cases apply as follows: A: If the hex contains a friendly base (e.g., starbase, mobile base) or planet, the conditions and penalties of a fighting retreat do not apply after the first approach battle. The retreating units are merged with the friendly units at the base/planet and conduct future rounds of combat normally (i.e., a fighting retreat just turned into a normal retreat).

Does this mean that by not taking the approach battle that the fighting retreat force never has to have BIR zero for the first round of combat?

Or is there always at least one round that the fighting retreat force has to fight at BIR 0?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 11:38 am: Edit

Q305.11 in view of 305.0. May a player decline to roll to capture a killed enemy ship? 305.0 uses the term "may" but 305.11 simply says to roll the dice and observe the result, so it is not clear to me whether a player may voluntarily forgo a capture attempt. The reason why this is important is that a player may wish to preclude pursuit by ensuring that he has no crippled ships upon retreat. However, if he kills a ship, or if the enemy self-kills a ship, and if that ship is captured, then the player will have no choice but to either stay another round and fight to have that captured ship killed (and presumably suffer a lot more damage on top of that) - or retreat and suffer an undesired pursuit battle now that he has a crippled captured ship that he didn't want. Ruling requested, thank you.

By William Stec (Billstec2) on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 11:42 am: Edit

Does a crippled Mobile Base serve as a source of supply?

Situation:
An empire sets up a mobile base in the territory of an ally (with permission), and said mobile base is supplying it's owner's ships which are engaged in combat ops. During the turn, the mobile base is crippled due to an enemy attack.

My question is this: Does the Mobile Base, despite being crippled, still serve as a supply point for the owner's ships engaged in combat ops several hexes away? Or are the owner's ships now out of supply (it should be assumed that the crippling occurs on the Coalition turn so that they cannot retrograde back to the mobile base)?

This is in relation to an ACTA:SF scenario I am writing.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Q425.3: Request for clarification of a ruling in reference to rapid combat repair:

---

Quote:

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 05:57 pm: Edit

(425.3)Rapid Combat Repair can be used between combat rounds to repair damaged ships. Can Rapid Combat Repair be used after a declined approach battle (302.22) to repair damaged ships that were damaged in the previous player phase?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 11:37 am: Edit

(425.3) Rapid Combat Repair (RCR)

The rule specifically states that RCR can be done during the "COMBAT PHASE (SoP Phase 5 during 5-6X8) to repair ships in the same hex" as the repair unit. There is no requirement that damage must be scored in the current player turn/location or no requirement that actual combat must be performed; only that these RCR is done in that PHASE.

A "null" combat hex would also be eligible for RCR to enable such things as repair of units damaged during a raid or units that retreat on to a repair facility so long as the damage unit and the repair facility are co-located at the time of RCR; all RCR restrictions still apply.

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, March 23, 2013 - 07:37 am: Edit

Q522.33 Can a single ship of any type carrying more than one Prime Team in the Op movement phase or strategic movement phase? (522.33) states that a single ship may operate only 1 Prime Team at a time. However this conflicts with (539.131) and (539.231) below.

Rules for consideration: (539.131) and (539.231) each state that the unit in question may carry two passengers including Prime Teams and they may function normally.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, March 23, 2013 - 01:21 pm: Edit

So for purposes of Small Scale Combat (310.0), do ad-hoc escorts (515.34) count at their actual, pre-ad-hoc attack factor or at their ad-hoc escort attack factor by virtue of (310.114)?

i.e. if the Kzinti have 3 ships in a force they want to use for SSC, one of which is a carrier and one of which is a FF they want to use as an ad-hoc escort, does it count as 4 attack factors or 1 attack factors for the purposes of whether or not they are eligible to use SSC?

FEDS RESPONSE:
With all due respect, can you cite an example of where one would NOT have enough command rating to leave the carrier without escorts but still use the standard ships since SSC has no more than three units and one unit must serve as a flagship? Your question seems moot.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 08:05 am: Edit

FEDS wrote:
>>With all due respect, can you cite an example of where one would NOT have enough command rating to leave the carrier without escorts but still use the standard ships since SSC has no more than three units and one unit must serve as a flagship? Your question seems moot.>>

Hmm. I think you are misunderstanding the focus of my question. I'm not trying to exclude units or avoid flagships. I'm trying to include units into the force.

(310.114) states that units with variable attack factors count as their highest factor for purposes of SSC.

Ad-hoc escorts have a reduced factor when assigned as ad-hoc escorts. But a non reduced factor when not. Which might or might not count as a "variable" attack factor for the purposes of SSC (I suspect that the intention of 310.114 is ships with shock that have the ability to adjust their AF to avoid shock, but it might also apply to ad-hoc escorts).
FEDS: There is no requirement that carriers MUST be escorted, but there are consequences of failing to do so such as the ghost command slots being used.

A concrete example:

The Kzinti have the following ships in a force:

-CVE
-CLE
-FF
FEDS: This example is flawed since a CVE one require one escort:

---

Quote:

(515.351) A carrier group with one escort can have either a heavy or light escort.

---

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 04:36 pm: Edit

>>-CVE
-CLE
-FF
FEDS: This example is flawed since a CVE one require one escort: >>

(While the crux of my question was solved by the rule stating that you can simply ignore excess compot over 14 to make a force work for SSC, which was something I somehow never noticed, this comment above confuses me: )

How is this a flawed example? The example I gave was "I have three ships. Here are the three ships. I want to use them as a carrier group. Which is completely legal and reasonable." (i.e. You can, and often will, escort a CVE with a CLE and then an extra FF as a second escort). I'm not trying to make trouble or anything. I just in no way understand how this is a flawed example of, well, anything.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Monday, April 01, 2013 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Deleted