Yeah, I got no idea at this point.

I have always assumed that a spare .5 SEQ would not pin a full ship. But, well, unclear.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, May 27, 2013 - 03:39 pm: Edit

The pinning rules also say a fast ship is pinned by a non-fast ship because it cannot leave half of itself behind.

This isn't the same thing, but it is closest that I can find to something that addresses the issue.

By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Monday, May 27, 2013 - 04:59 pm: Edit

203.50 is pretty clear. pinning isnt some kind of privilege of the opposing units- heck it isn't even optional for them. your exiting the hex is the privilege which is subject to the requirements of 203.5/ 203.55.

a rules lawyer might weasel the word "equal" as meaning, if you have 1000 frigates, you may not exit the hex since it's not possible for you to leave exactly 8.5 SEs behind. but i'm pretty confident everybody reading 203.5 in light of that hypothetical situation would regard "equal" as meaning "greater than or equal".

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, May 27, 2013 - 09:05 pm: Edit

The half squardon (0.5 SE) of attrition could leave only if it was doing a (319) strike...

The CR rating diff (203.55) is also available if the offensive player wishes...

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - 09:59 am: Edit

So if there is a CC and 3 Kzinti fighters in a hex (i.e. 1.5 SEQ), and then there are 2 Klingon F5s in the hex (just using specific ships to make the CR issue irrelevant), an F5 can't leave the hex, as the .5 SEQ of fighters pins a full ship, correct?

What about a .33 SEQ worth (i.e. 2) of fighters?

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - 11:40 am: Edit

Its awful hard to have a CC and 3xKzinti fighters in a hex. So I will change the question to

Kzinti CVE with its 3 fighters is opposed by 2xF5's. This preserves the same CR consideration.

The F5's are pinned because the cannot leave equal numbers behind them, Nor do they possess a CR advantage to use the 203.55 exception.

I would be careful about then saying that .5 SEQ pins a full ship, in the edge case where you have .5SEQ remaining and the opponent does NOT have .5 SEQ remaining his only option to meet the equal requirement is a full ship. And in this case a half SE effectively pins a full SE.

if you have 2 fighters left they don't pin anything even 2 fighters. So lets make the example a Kzinti CVE that has only 2 fighters remaining (because for some reason it could not resupply fighters) but is in supply and its opposed by an FV, E4A.

The Klingons can leave the E4A escort behind to satisfy the pin of the CVE, the 2 Kzinti fighters don't do count at all as they are 0 SE and even though the Klingons have some fighters on the FV they would not need to worry about the less than a half SE of fighters. If the CVE had 3 fighters though the FV group would have to leave the FV carrier behind and could leave with only the E4A escort.

This is how I understand the rules to work... take that with a grain of salt, I have been proven wrong more than once on such things, and been shown I have been doing it wrong for years!

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - 01:11 pm: Edit

It was previously ruled by Nick Blank (former FEAR) back in December of 2006* that a half a pin factor DOES NOT pin anything, other than another half a pin factor.

Therefore, 8 1/2 pin factor would only pin 8 pin factor, and that 9th ship is free to leave.

Unless a current FEAR wishes to overrule the previous FEAR? Edit: And no he doesn't....


*I looked through all the archives, took me forever, and found it in the 2006 archive. Plus, I never found an actual answer to whether or not I can react with just 1 fighter factor. Bummer.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Ok, so as of the last time this was ruled on, .5 SEQ *does not* pin a full ship.

So in the instance I proposed above, a CC and 3 fighter factors (we'll say it is a Lord Marshall) in in a hex with 2xF5. One of the two F5s *can* leave the hex, as the .5 SEQ (consisting of 3 fighters) *does not* pin the second F5.

Any clues on where the ruling is archived?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - 02:06 pm: Edit

FEDS today has confirmed and clarified the past ruling.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - 03:59 pm: Edit

Thanks!

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, June 01, 2013 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Chris Upson said (in the Q&A)


please see the november 18 2008, Q&A "half a pin factor is better than none".


Chris, I could not find this, could you explain what you are trying to say?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, June 01, 2013 - 08:15 pm: Edit

I found it (it is actually a question from one of my last FTF games :-); the question is about a reserve fleet flying through a hex with enemy ships, and wanting to leave .5 SEQ in fighters behind (as there is a .5 SEQ in the hex it is going through) so as to not have to leave a full SEQ behind, and thus not be able to go through the hex (as a reserve fleet can't leave more than half its ships behind). The ruling states that a reserve fleet can leave .5 SEQ of fighters behind.

I'm not quite sure how this fits into the discussion at hand exactly. But it does involve both pinning and .5 SEQs.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, June 14, 2013 - 05:18 pm: Edit

Mike wrote:
>>Official ruling by SVC: All light escorts now cost 0.5 EPs to produce or convert as determined by staff and SVC. SITs to be adjusted at a later time to reflect this change. FCRs are not normal light escorts and do not count in this ruling.>>

Sweet monkey butler. That is awesome.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, June 14, 2013 - 11:44 pm: Edit

Agreed. This is very good news for the game.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Very good change on the light escorts!

Something to consider when working on the SITS changes. Some of the Heavy Escorts that are only heavy because of doctrine maybe should be considered for the .5ep cost. A ship that is a heavy escort only because it was used in that role probably should be charged the same as a light escort since well its really not getting anymore of an overhaul than a light escort!

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 01:48 pm: Edit

I dunno--the advantage that the heavy escort gets over the light escort is that it gets to be protected by the light escort. Even if it is a stupid heavy escort (see: Fed ECL), it is rarely going to get killed by accident.

Light escorts get killed constantly, as they are very often the only thing that you can shoot. Heavy escorts only get killed when you let them get killed. Which is enough of an advantage to justify paying the 1 point relative to the light escorts.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Indeed, and I wouldn't suggest the ECL be made a .5 ep cost, but things that specifically say "This would normally be a light escort but because of doctrine its a heavy escort" like the Kzinti DDE and I Think the Hydran DE (but could be wrong).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 02:20 pm: Edit

The ADB ruling applies to only to light escorts. It was based on the issue of their outer-most, exterior mission value and not of their hull size. The second and third order effects of the repeal of CEDS and the associated 3Rs (retrograde, replacements, repair) meant that the economic value of purchasing light escorts was exceeded by the economic value of ad hoc light escorts.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Michael has a good idea there. After all, it's not the "heavy escort" that is impossible to kill - it's the "inside escort". If a Klingon carrier has an F5E/E4E combo for escorts, the F5E is going to nigh impossible to kill, but that doesn't make it a heavy escort.

So scanning for ships that really aren't heavy escorts but commonly used in the inside escort role would be a good idea. However, a quick scan only comes up with one ship - the Federation DE - as it is used as the inside escort early on and it becomes the outside escort later on.

And it's already classified as a light escort, get's the .5 ep discount, so no change is needed there.

The Kzinti DE is the only other ship that might apply... and really, for such a rare ship it's not worth the rules notation.

But here's a question: Once the Kzinti DE is reclassified as a light escort, does that mean the cost of converting one is reduced to .5 ep? I would assume yes (though no rebate on previously converted DE's).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 06:41 pm: Edit

The Kzinti DDE is classed as a heavy escort by doctrine (see SIT). I am unaware of any ruling that changes it otherwise and I am also unaware of any Kzinti ship with the designation of "DE".

The ADB ruling on the cost of light escort conversions does NOT open the debate on what should or should not be classified as a light escort. If ADB has already ruled that any ship is to be treated as a heavy escort, regardless of its size class, then the debate is over and the issue is closed.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Rulings aren't really the term.

The "ruling" was "let's try it for a while before making it official and doing new SITs.

I am undecided on the Kzinti DDE. It is possible that it might count as a heavy escort but be purchased for point five.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Sorry, I meant the DDE.

I don't have the rule in front of me, but there was a notation that the Kzinti DDE is reclassified as a light escort after a certain year. (175?) Maybe that was only a proposal, but I thought it made it into the rulebook.

Yeah, just did a search, I can't find the notation. I don't know where to begin to find it.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 07:48 pm: Edit

Ah, there we go: Q&A archives, 2002, near the bottom of the page.

"Q2604: Is the Kzinti DDE a heavy escort as in recent rulings or a light escort as in CL20?
A: It is a heavy escort due to the doctrine of its deployment. If you have any left in Y176 or later, you can reclassify them as light escorts. The ship will be in AO and formal rules there may change this."

This of course might have been changed when the formal rules were written, as I cannot find any reference to this now. But I post this just to show I'm not totally crazy.

By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 10:31 pm: Edit

the fed DE, and to some extent the lyran DWE, are both somewhat prone to abuse the rule change, by being light escorts that are not always outer escorts, subject to being blown away.

i don't know if the erratum is set in stone already, but it might be prudent to apply the discount only to frigate-hull escorts, as it is those in particular which are actually in competition with ad-hoc outer escorts (the latter inevitably frigates).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 11:58 pm: Edit

Change the word frigate to four point escort and it would seem reasonable. People build the five point (and larger) escorts already, don't need to make THOSE cheaper.