Archive through April 09, 2013
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS: F&E Q&A Discussions: Archive through April 09, 2013
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 08:01 pm: Edit

PDB:

The rules DO indicate that maulers can be used as escorts:

Quote:

(515.332) The following types of units, if used as escorts, lose their special abilities: SFG‡ units, scouts, maulers, ground combat ships‡, and drone ships. These are treated under (515.34) and lose one-half of their offensive value.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 08:07 pm: Edit

You'll note I said "much like the rules don't indicate that Maulers can't be escorts either..."

I guess the double negative could be confusing, though.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 08:56 pm: Edit

What about assigning a Shock ship to ad-hoc duty? Legal or not?

F6: 7AF/2=3.5 rnd dwn to 3.

3-7 escort not too shabby...in a pinch.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 09:00 pm: Edit

No better than a CW, worse really, as it's crippled defense is 2.

I would assume shock ships to get the higher calculation (if there is one) would have to roll for shock.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 09:18 pm: Edit

Shock ships can be used as ad hoc escorts but their shock value is cut 50%+ and they roll for shock if they use their higher shock basis.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 05, 2013 - 10:20 am: Edit

(wrong thread)

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 10:39 am: Edit

To continue in uncluttered glory:

For Pete's question (449.23), I believe that it is resolved by two things:

1. The overall rule for base hull is 755.0 which provides that the base hull of a ship is provided in the SIT. In this case, it says an F5L has the F5 as a base hull.

2. 449.22 specifies a change to 955.0 that only applies to this 449.22 (salvage). There is no similar exception listed in WYN trade.

I would say that it is simply an oversight in the Wyn rule's wording, although I think that the current wording leads to the F5L being treated as a base hull.

The F5L doesn't even repair like an F5. It takes 3 Repair points. It doesn't salvage like an F5. It can't even be produced at a Starbase like an F5 can.

It acts like a base hull for all of the significant economic rules.

Okay, Chuck and Mike, take it away!

And don't say that we don't give you guys lots of work!

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 11:01 am: Edit

There are other F5 variants that cannot be directly produced at a Starbase (the FV is one), it is not unique in that respect.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 11:55 am: Edit

The base hull for the F5L is still the F5. See the SIT.

The F5L along with the Romulan K5L are oddities in that they are leaders but the leader rule (303.52) doesn't apply to the F5 and F5L and the K5 and K5L.

Basically the F5L and K5L are leader variants of the F5 and K5 but because they have acutal counters in the game they have some unusual effects on rules as compared to units that follow the leader rule.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 12:31 pm: Edit

The Hydrans have something similar with their FFs and the CR. Probably happened because the units were added to the game prior to the leader rule (I assume).

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 12:48 pm: Edit

No, the leader rule and the F5L, K5L and CR are all in the base game.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 01:12 pm: Edit

I don't know, I don't have the original rules from the 80s anymore.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 05:15 pm: Edit

F&E 89 has F5L/K5Ls and CRUs. There is no sub-rule off of (303.5). (303.5) simply mentions that CWLs will appear in a future product, and to assume that one of the CWs are a CWL in the case that three or more are together.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Yeah, well those aren't the original rules either. The first edition came out in 1986. Maybe it did have the leader rule, but I don't know one way or the other.

By Bill Steele (Bill83501) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 06:43 pm: Edit

I remember playing back in 1980, but I think it might have had a different name. We used it as a SFB battle generator.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 06:54 pm: Edit

That was Federation Space, which was a thematically similar, but altogether different game.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 07:05 pm: Edit

That game had no Lyrans.

Klingons were surrounded on 3 sides!

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 07:09 pm: Edit

It had an expansion with the Lyrans in Nexus magazine. I can't remember, did it have an unknown race west of the Hydrans?

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 08:15 pm: Edit

Yeah, the expansion was called Lyran Space.

I don't recall a race west of the Hydrans, but I think that now that's the Borak Star League.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 09, 2013 - 11:05 am: Edit

On Pete's question, I believe the correct references is 314.244, not 312.244.

Also, the question may be answered, at least by implication, by 314.274, which provides that the defending ships if it survived remains in the raid target hex.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 09, 2013 - 01:02 pm: Edit

I believe the question is still much up in the air vis a vis retreating from a raid.

Firstly 314.274 is not addressing if a defending ship in a raid can retreat or not.. it is merely clarifying that if the defending ship survives it remains in the hex (or the hex it retreated to). This rule is about allowing this ship if it is not destroyed to act normally during operational movement from whatever hex it ends up in at the end of raid movement.

Quote:

314.274 The defending ship (if it survived) remains in the raid target hex (or a hex it retreated into) and operates from that point normally. It could later use reaction movement in the Operational Movement Phase of the same turn...

Omitted part is an exception for Police Ships called up to a raid and is not applicable.

What is important here is does the SOP allow for a retreat as part of the combat in a raid? Or are the rules for SSC just used to determine how many casualties are generated and its done outside of the SOP itself?

In the old rules one just rolled on a chart, this chart allowed no option but for one side to either retreat, be crippled and retreat, or to be destroyed.. nothing at all occured to the other side. So a raid came in, the defender reacted a ship and combat happened on a chart.. the raider either prevailed and went on to raid the hex (in which case the defender that reacted either retreated or was destroyed. Or the opposite happened and the raider was retreated or destroyed... there was no regular combat that occured, one went to this chart to resolve the combat.

Now however we use SSC, but part and parcel of SSC now is that casualties can be taken as a retreat action.. and SSC lives within the framework of SOP combat itself. In fact in SSC the option to take a casualty as a retreat says that it is equivalent to taking the first option to retreat under 302.71. So retreat and the entire process of retreat is built into SSC as it now exists. One can retreat from SSC either by taking a casualty as a retreat and then going to the retreat section of the SOP, or once the retreat section is reached one may voluntarily retreat.

There is indeed a disconnect, the old 310 SSC rules were partioned and dichotomous, one side always retreated (or was killed) and the other "won" the engagement. Using the new SSC there is no clear cut situation, both sides can receive some amount of casualties which may or may not be resolved with retreat as the rules allow.. but in any case it seems there is a full retreat phase built into SSC and hence now the resolution of normal raid combat.

If a ruling comes that the defender may not retreat in these cases, I think this would have to be considered a change in the rules as written... which is okay by me of course, but it should also clarify that while voluntary retreat is disallowed that if either side chooses to resolve a casualty by taking a retreat that such is allowed.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Tuesday, April 09, 2013 - 01:15 pm: Edit

Actually, I would say that if the ruling comes that the defender may retreat, that would be a change in the rules as written.


The Sequence of Play shows the entire retreat procedure as part of the Combat phase, not the raid phase. The raid phase makes no indication that it uses the combat phase rules.

In fact, in step 7 (retreat), there are things that are listed that explicitly can't be done in the raid, such as choosing pursuit and for that matter having two retreat options, neither of which can happen during a raid. In fact, if you look at Phase 5, step 7 (which governs retreat, virtually all of those steps cannot be conducted during a raid:

1 - There aren't two options to retreat for the defender.
2 - There is no option to continue if neither player retreats. Raids have one round of combat, period.
3 - There is no "screening base" procedure for a raid.
4 - There is no option to choose to pursue.

From the game rationale standpoint, a ship just responded to a raid, and chased off the attacker. The next thing that happens is that that ship retreats? Doesn't seem likely.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Tuesday, April 09, 2013 - 01:49 pm: Edit

I also put forward this extract from the Sequence of Play:

3A-2G: Reacting ships forced to retreat must do so (314.244)

There is nothing in the raid sequence that says that a reacting ship can choose to retreat.

There should be a risk in reacting to a raid with your most powerful ship. In this case, you can react a carrier tug - which is probably the ultimate raider killer. And you have a good chance of crippling or even killing the raider as a result. But the risk is that now that very powerful unit may not be available for something else later in the sequence.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 09, 2013 - 04:29 pm: Edit

I believe it is a SOP issue, and the only way ESSC works is to be integrated into the SOP. Quite specifically the ESSC rules call on retreat, and point us to the retreat rules. It also says ESSC basically short-circuits the usual SOP. From the SSC rules

Quote:

...This system is used beginnig at Sequence of Play Sub Step 5-3J and ending after SoP Sub-Step 5-6B



Indeed there are things in Step 7 retreat that are not possible in a raid, pursuit being one of them... that is specifically called out in the raid rules that pursuit is not allowed.

That there are not two options to retreat for the defender is unknown. In regular SSC combat there certainly are two retreat opportunities, as retreat is handled just as it always is. IF there is a retreat otion at all for the defender there will be two of them. In fact the SSC rules themselves say
Quote:

if the Defending Player chooses to take his one allotted casualty as a "retreat" action, this is treated as if the Defender exercised his first option to retreat under (302.71)

so if there is retreat in a raid at all it seems there is a first defender option as its explicitely called out in the SSC rules.

As for no extra rounds of combat, no screening of the base nor option to pursue.. those are all called out in the raid rules themselves as being exceptions to the normal combat procedures... nowhere does it say you may not choose to retreat, it just specifies to use SSC.

3A-2G is making a statement about what must occur, saying that one must retreat when forced is not the same as saying one cannot retreat if wished. The rules do not have to say that retreat is allowed if they appeal to a combat sequence that implicitely allows retreat. in 3A-2E when your called to use SSC then you use SSC and that neccessarily entails the retreat procedure.

As to the game rationale standpoint. A huge fleet comes in and destroys an enemy starbase after all defenders fled... the next thing that happens is they retreat... just as unlikely as those responding to a Raid. In the absurd case, consider this... using SSC IF the raider does well and scores a casualty the reacting ship is allowed to retreat.. however if the raider does poorly the reacting ship is forced to remain there and cannot retreat?

Lastly there should be a risk indeed... just as there should be one to the raider. If one did not raid within reaction range of a powerful unit then the risk to the raider is limited. Just because the reacting ship retreats does not divorce them of risk, it does as often happens in retreat mitigate it somewhat.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, April 09, 2013 - 09:00 pm: Edit

If I may ask, what was the question?

A ship that reacts to a raid is treated as if it had started the turn there [either the raid hex or the hex it was forced to retreat to (314.274)].

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation