(Q515.34) My opponent is using a CW as an "ad hoc" escort. He claims that it's offensive compot is 4, as he says that the reduction is one half of the normal compot factor with fractions rounded down.

I say it is 3, because the rule says to reduce the offensive compot of the unit in question TO one half the normal value (rounding fractions down).

To quote the rule for easy access:

(515.34) STANDARD WARSHIPS not otherwise excluded may be used as "ad hoc" escorts, but their offensive value is reduced to one-half of the printed factor (round fractions down) or by three, whichever is a greater reduction (e.g., a Kzinti FF would be a 1-4). Their attack strength cannot be reduced to a point less than zero. Their defense strength is not changed.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 03, 2013 - 11:10 am: Edit

Q515.34. How do you properly calculate the reduction in compot for ad-hoc escorts? I say that the rule is stating that you take the value of the ship, divide in two, and then drop any fractions. Thus, the proper calculation of an ad-hoc Lyran CW would be 7/2=3.5, rounding down to 3. Accordingly, the Lyran CW as an ad hoc escort has 3 compot. However, my opponent claims that the rule is stating that you calculate the *reduction* using the formula. So, the *reduction* is 7/2=3.5, rounding down to 3. Accordingly, my opponent claims that the ad hoc Lyran CW would have a compot of 7-3=4. The rule says that the compot is reduced "to" the value, and so I argue that the proper calculation is that the Lyran CW has 3 compot, not 4. Opponent argues otherwise and insists compot is 4, not 3. Who is correct? Thank you.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, April 03, 2013 - 11:14 am: Edit

[Deleted]

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 11:31 am: Edit

(303.52) DWLs:

Kzinti FFs are listed under this rule as getting a +1 attack leader bonus if there are 3+ of them in a given battle line. Does this happen if there are 3x FF in the line as ad-hoc escorts (i.e. one of the 3 Kzinti FFs assigned to be ad-hoc escorts gets a +1 attack bonus for being a leader)?

I can't see any reason why not, but I'm checking just in case.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Paraphrasing...

If there are three CW or DWs (not variants) in the Battle Force, one of them is regarded as a CWL or DWL with one additional (uncrippled) attack factor and a Command Rating one point higher. Even if there are six CW or DWs in a hex, there is only one “assumed leader” of each hull type.


Using any ship in an ad hoc escort ROLE does not change that ship to another variant.

---

Quote:

(515.341) Standard warships do not pay the cost of conversion to an escort and do not become escorts; they are simply assigned to that ROLE.

---

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Why is that sleaze? You either gain a point of compot being a CWL, or you do not lose a point of compot acting as an ad-hoc. Either way, you have +1 to compot.

Maybe I could see a tactical advantage to using the CWL as an ad-hoc escort which I then intend to cripple in the next round, but I don't see a major advantage either way.

I'm not objecting to the ruling, I just don't see the need for cluttering the ruleset.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Hmm. I don't necessarily know what the answer to my question is here.

So if there are 3xKzinti FFs in a battle line, and all three of them are used as ad-hoc escorts, does one of them count as a "leader" and get +1 attack value?

It seems like the answer is in there, but I can't really figure it out. Sorry.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Note that the Kzinti FF leader rule is if you are not using the FFK in AdvOps.

Bakija, if you're not using AO, then one FFs is the FFL and gains a +1 as all the FFs are being used as ad-hocs...

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 06:51 pm: Edit

Ah, ok. I'll take that. Cool.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 07:05 pm: Edit

deleted by poster, wrong topic.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 05, 2013 - 10:21 am: Edit

When resolving damage, can you combine a half (triangle) fighter factor and the extra .5 damage absorbed by a Starbase SID (which takes absorbs 4.5 damage) into a full point of damage resolution?

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 07:01 am: Edit

(449.23) - Upon delivery of the ship, the Wyns will pay the race selling the ship an amount of EPs equal to double the original construction cost of base hull of that ship type... The "original construction cost" is defined as the lowest cost for which a base hull of that type could be built by any of the various methods, not necessarily the cost of that specific ship.

(439.22) - The economic cost for purposes of calculating proceeds from salvage is based on the base hull and ignores the cost of fighters, PFs, etc. Command variants (CCs, F5Ls, D7Cs, etc.) count as a base hull type for this rule.

The question is, does a Klingon F5L count as a base hull type for this rule. Note that all of the F5 variants get salvage based on the F5, but the F5L actually does have a higher salvage value, and its base cost is 4.

So, if an uncrippled F5L is sold to the Wyn, do they get 8 EPs or 6 EPs?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 09:16 am: Edit

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.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Unless overruled by ADB, the base hulls according to the SITs for the following:

Klingon F5L is the F5
Romulan K5L is the K5
Hydran CR is the HN

ADB gave actual command variants a bump in the salvage only.

FEDS SENDS

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Okay, well we'll continue in our game with that, but I would like to appeal the ruling to SVC for future reference.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 07:55 pm: Edit

FEAR concurs with FEDS on the base hull definition.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Tuesday, April 09, 2013 - 10:53 am: Edit

(314.244) - B: "A defender forced to retreat would do so under the normal rules for retreating".

So, in this circumstance, defending ships suffered no casualties as a result of the raid combat.

Can a defending unit retreat after the raid even if there no casualties to resolve?

Retreat seems to be a function of normal combat, not raid combat from what I can see. Raids only allow one round and then poof.

Relevent Rules:

Sequence of Play:

3A-2E: Raiding ships and reacting units conduct one round of small scale combat.

3A-2F: Raiders crippled or forced to retreat are returned to the raiding pool.

3A-2G: Reacting ships forced to retreat must do so.

(314.274) - The defending ship (if it survived) remains in the raid target hex (or a hex it retreated into).

There is nothing in the sequence of play for raids that I can see that allows a voluntary retreat for no casualties. The retreat options are listed specifically in the Combat Phase, not the raid phase.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 10, 2013 - 04:41 pm: Edit

Yaa! Discovering more rules questions!

If a Carrier is damaged or destroyed by directed damage, do the fighters lost (assuming they have nowhere to land) count as:

-Involuntary minus points

-Voluntary minus points

-No minus points at all

Pertinent rules quotes:

In (308.21), it specifically says "...resulting (only) by the destruction of a base or PDU by directed damage..."

In (308.23), it says "If a carrier or PFT is crippled or destroy[er] by voluntary damage resolution, then any fighters and/or PFs destroyed do not generate minus points..."

(And any insight to my question from 10:21, April 5? Thanks!)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, April 12, 2013 - 08:10 pm: Edit

After further review...

Unless overruled by ADB, the CWLs and DWL (and there equivalents) created and permitted under (303.5) cannot also serve as in any type of ESCORT group (carrier/PFT or FEG or Commando ESCORT groups). (Note the use of ESCORT group and NOT the use of the term "consort").

This prevents a potential rule conflicts where these leader ships could be assigned as un-reassignable ad hoc escorts on one turn but fail to meet the three-ship leader requirement on another.

FEDS SENDS

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, April 12, 2013 - 08:42 pm: Edit

FEAR Concurs

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, April 14, 2013 - 12:16 pm: Edit

(302.53) If a Carrier is damaged or destroyed by directed damage, do the fighters lost (assuming they have nowhere to land) count as involuntary minus points?

A(302.53) Yes - if a parent unit of attrition units is crippled or destroyed by directed damage then involuntary minus points are created that round if the parent unit's attrition units cannot satisfy further damage requirements or transfer to other units able to carry them; see (302.53).

---

Quote:

(302.5) STEP 5—DIRECTED DAMAGE

(302.53) ATTRITION UNITS: A player using Directed Damage against a unit is not required to destroy its fighters or PFs [see (501.7) and (502.45)]. However, any fighters/PFs remaining at the end of a Combat Round when their support unit is destroyed or crippled must be transferred [see (501.6) and (502.44)] to other units able to carry them (in the same hex), or they can be used to satisfy further damage requirements in that Combat Round. Exception: PFs may transfer (502.44) to a base/tender in an adjacent hex (arriving at the end of the Combat Phase). Fighters and PFs become “minus points” (308.2) only if transfer is impossible. In effect, it is “transfer or die” at the end of EACH Combat Round.

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, April 14, 2013 - 01:09 pm: Edit

By 302.21 do you mean 302.51?

FEDS: The above post was corrected to read (308.21).

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 09:16 am: Edit

Request for clarification to ruling on rule 302.53: Is it possible, under the following circumstance, for a player to manipulate damage during steps 5-6A through 5-6E of the sequence of play to result in involuntary minus points?

Circumstance: Player A generates 46 damage points. Player A uses 40 damage points and declares he's using directed damage to cripple an enemy Federation carrier group consisting of {CVB, NEC, FFE}. At some point, the exact point being in dispute, the Federation player must lose 4 fighters, as the CVB's capacity of 8 is halved to 4 and the Federation player has no available fighter bays in the hex. Knowing that he's going to retreat at the end of the combat round, player B asserts that during 5-6A or 5-6B (whichever is relevant) he may voluntarily decide to cripple a CA that had also been on the line. This action resolves 8 damage points, creating 2 minus points in view of the 6 remaining damage. Player B then asserts that the 4 CVB fighters automatically die, creating a total of 6 minus points. Player B then announces retreat and then cites rule 308.23 for the assertion that those 6 minus points are "involuntary" and thus all 6 minus points will count on pursuit. Assume that the combat is not a capital assault, so that normally only 3 voluntary minus points can be taken into pursuit.

Player A objects and says they can't be "involuntary" minus points because player B manipulated the system though his voluntary choices to generate the minus points. Player B says "that's just what the rule allows me to do."

Who is right?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 01:09 pm: Edit

Reference: Involuntary Minus Points

Involuntary minus points can ONLY be created if BOTH of these conditions from (308.23) are met:

1. The support unit of the attrition units is damaged or destroyed by Directed Damage

--AND--

2. The fighters and PFs of the support unit are lost by a lack of carrier/tender transfer facilities.

However, any unresolved damage points must still be resolved during SOP step 5-6A/B. Under (501.72), any attrition units that will not be able to transfer due to a lack of transfer facilities MUST IMMEDIATELY be given up as casualties at that point to satisfy the unresolved damage. “Immediately” means that any attrition units that would otherwise become involuntary points generated under (308.23) MUST IMMEDIATELY be used to satisfy the requirement under (501.72) BEFORE any further damage is resolved during SoP step 5-6A/B.

The actual transfer of surviving attrition units after damage resolution occurs during SoP step 5-6E.

Voluntary and involuntary points cannot normally be combined because if there are unresolved damage points after directed damage AND there are any attrition units that would otherwise become involuntary points generated under (308.23) then these doomed attrition points must immediately be used to satisfy the requirement of (501.72). Therefore, if any doomed attrition units remain after satisfying all remaining unresolved damage points they can become involuntary points during SoP 5-6E because they are unable to conduct a transfer at that point in the SoP. If on the other hand all doomed attrition units are used to satisfy any unresolved damage points under (501.72) and unresolved damage points still remain then if a player legally over cripples or destroys a unit to satisfy remaining damage then these excess points are treated as voluntary minus points.

There are very few ways to combine voluntary and involuntary points:

1. During pursuit from a multi-system battle; see (308.242).

2. During a non-multi-system hex where a player could have over-damaged/destroyed a unit during normal combat resulting in voluntary minus points, then during the marine phase lose a PDU where the attrition units could not transfer resulting in involuntary minus points.

FEDS SENDS

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

Applicable rules:

(105.0) PHASE 5 - STEP 6: DAMAGE ALLOCATION (302.6)
5-6A: Non-Phasing Player resolves general (non-directed) damage (302.6) to his units. See also (302.617).
5-6B: Phasing Player resolves general (non-directed) damage (302.6) to his units. See also (302.617).
5-6C: Determine the fate of Prime Teams assigned to destroyed units (522.32).
5-6D: Both players resolve shock for maulers (308.42) and non-maulers (311.21).
5-6E: Conduct ship transfers of fighters (501.6) and PFs (502.45).

(501.72) LOST CARRIERS: If the carrier is destroyed or crippled and the fighters cannot be transferred by (501.6), they are given up as casualties immediately at that point in the Combat Round; see (308.23) and (302.614). See (502.45) PFT damage.

(302.5) STEP 5—DIRECTED DAMAGE

(302.53) ATTRITION UNITS: A player using Directed Damage against a unit is not required to destroy its fighters or PFs [see (501.7) and (502.45)]. However, any fighters/PFs remaining at the end of a Combat Round when their support unit is destroyed or crippled must be transferred [see (501.6) and (502.44)] to other units able to carry them (in the same hex), or they can be used to satisfy further damage requirements in that Combat Round. Exception: PFs may transfer (502.44) to a base/tender in an adjacent hex (arriving at the end of the Combat Phase). Fighters and PFs become “minus points” (308.2) only if transfer is impossible. In effect, it is “transfer or die” at the end of EACH Combat Round.

(308.23) ATTRITION UNITS: Fighters and PFs lost by a lack of carrier/tender facilities (501.7) and (502.45) are credited as involuntary minus points if the base were damaged or destroyed by Directed Damage. If a carrier or PFT is crippled or destroyer by voluntary damage resolution, then any fighters and/or PFs lost do not generate minus points, but might count against any remaining unresolved damage points.

(308.242) The number of “involuntary minus points” that can be carried over to the pursuit battle is limited to six (twelve in a capital battle) but this limit includes the number of voluntary points if there are any.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 02:17 pm: Edit

Thank you for your ruling and your patience Chuck.