So do I, though we may want to reconsider this issue if and when we ever add any *other* half-point conversions into the game.

Making 6 escorts at a starbase just doesn't scare me balance wise. Making 6 (fill in the blank) might.

Until that day, we're fine.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, June 20, 2013 - 04:08 pm: Edit

I don't want to see it changed back and forth. So please, don't change it back if more conversions come out in the future.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, June 22, 2013 - 09:15 pm: Edit

Here is my carrier light escort value analysis to show how ad hoc light escorts compare to the standard light escorts from a combined offensive and defensive capability which I call combat strength. I then divided that strength by the current escort cost and then again by the interim light ecsort cost to show the relative value of that strength.

Red = standard light escort strenth deficit compared to its ad hoc sister ship
Green = standard light escort strenth surplus compared to its ad hoc sister ship

Ship	Escort AF	Escort DF	Strength(S) (AF+DF)	Current Cost	Current Escort Value Ratio (S/$)	New Cost	New Escort Value Ratio (S/$)
Kzinti FF	1	4	5	2.5	2.00	2.5	2.00
Kzinti EFF	2	4	6	3.5	1.71	3.0	2.00
.
Kzinti FFK	2	5	7	3.0	2.33	3.0	2.33
Kzinti FKE	4	5	9	4.0	2.25	3.5	2.57
.
Kzinti DW	3	6	9	4.0	2.25	4.0	2.25
Kzinti DWE	5	6	11	5.0	2.20	4.5	2.44
.
Hydran CU	1	4	5	2.5	2.00	2.5	2.00
Hydran AH	3	4	7	3.5	2.00	3.0	2.33
.
Hydran DWF*	4	6	10	5.0	2.00	5.0	2.00
Hydran DWE*	6	6	12	6.0	2.00	5.5	2.18
.
Klingon E4	1	4	5	2.5	2.00	2.5	2.00
Klingon E4A	2	4	6	3.5	1.71	3.0	2.00
.
Klingon F5	2	5	7	3.0	2.33	3.0	2.33
Klingon F5E	4	5	9	4.0	2.25	3.5	2.57
.
Klingon F5L/F5W	3	6	9	4.0	2.25	4.0	2.25
Klingon FWE	5	6	11	5.0	2.20	4.5	2.44
.
Federation FF	2	5	7	3.0	2.33	3.0	2.33
Federation FFE	4	5	9	4.0	2.25	3.5	2.57
.
Fed DW	3	6	9	4.0	2.25	4.0	2.25
Fed DWA	5	6	11	5.0	2.20	4.5	2.44
.
Federation DD	3	6	9	6.0	1.50	6.0	1.50
Federation DE	5	6	11	7.0	1.57	6.5	1.69

* The Hydran DWF/DWE also include the cost of their one hybrid fighter.

By Michael Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 08:07 am: Edit

Light escorts will take an extra one to three points of damage to direct to cripple and or destroy above and beyond their listed defense factors, assuming that they are the outer escort (likely as these are light escorts). This would not apply to a group attack, of course, but should this be accounted for (at say 2 points) for this chart's purposes?

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 10:19 pm: Edit

I think the new light escort rule should include a provision that in the cases of a double conversion, such as the Fed FF to FBE, the cost is not reduced below the cost of hull type conversion. In the FF to FBE, it cost two to convert FF to FFB, one from the FFB to FBE, and subtract one, given a end cost of two. In reducing the light escort cost to 1/2, the updated cost should not be reduced to 1-1/2 for this conversion.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, June 24, 2013 - 08:13 am: Edit

John,

I do not have my rules in front of me but I believe the 2-step conversion rule says something to the effect that a conversion may not be dropped lower than 1 by use of this rule, but it MIGHT be worded as cannot be made 0.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, June 24, 2013 - 09:45 pm: Edit

I see no such words in (437.2), nor is there anything in the master errata.

Until now, there has not been any conversion less than 1. As such there has not been any two-step conversions which is discounted to less than the hull up-sizing cost.

This would apply to the Fed FF->FBE, Klin F5->FWE, Kzi FF->FKE, Gorn DD->BDE, Tholian PC->DDE, Hyd FF->DWE, and Lyr FF->DWE.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, June 24, 2013 - 10:06 pm: Edit

DUP

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 06:12 am: Edit

(From Peter Dimitri) Wyn Trade

(449.133) - The rules on transporting EPs require them to be picked up from somewhere that has them (at least a partial grid) and deliver them to somewhere that can receive them (at least a partial grid).

Question: this doesn't seem to indicate that the EPs need to be picked up or dropped off at the Capital. Does that mean they can be picked up and dropped off at any supply point?

I would think what it is talking about is using a satellite stockpile. You could also do it by 435.25, which doesn't really say how to take EPs from a partial supply grid, but does refer to (435.251) a designated center of a partial grid (when taking EPs to a partial supply grid).

I would note that the partial supply grid rules themselves say you just need to reach a supply point to deliver EPs to a partial supply grid (without creating a satellite stockpile).


So anyway, imo, you'd have to pick up EPs by the normal rules for doing that, unless you can find something that says you can take EPs to the WYN by a different method that also explicitly describes that method.

Essentially (imo), you cannot pick up EPs at a border base and take them to a base of an adjacent empire (or the WYN) and deliver them there, which makes sense from a balance point (this would be too easy).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 05:13 am: Edit

"The text of this specific rule (307.41) is clear: "The pursuing player may designate one or more crippled ships and declare them to be a single target for Directed Damage".

Item (3) is most correct but any outer escorts will benefit from any escort bonuses first then the attack on the crippled inner escort will benefit on any remaining escorts second, then add them up to determine the overall damage for the combined crippled pursuit attack.

Using your example of crippled group of (CVS,CLE,EFF):

In the combined attack the EFF will need 6 points to destroy (2 DF x 2) + 2 escort bonuses

Then the CLE will need 7 points to destroy (3 DF x 2) + 1 escort bonus.

In total the combined crippled PURSUIT attack will require 13 points to destroy both escorts.

FEDS SENDS "


I don't think this is correct - crippled escorts do not get the escort bonus (308.111)

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 01:52 pm: Edit

Actually, I don't think this is correct at all.

From the 2005 Q&A archive:

Asked by Dale Fields, Dec 7, 2005, (to Nick Blank? or Mike Curtis?)
If the retreating force was:

CVS+MEC+(dwe), CVL+(cle)+(eff), (cve)+FKE, (ff)

and the Coalition again scored 10 damage with a D6M could they kill the dwe, cle, eff, and ff for 10 damage?

ANSWER: As long as you follow the normal rules for each sub-case, you can hit the combination, so you could destroy the ff, eff and dwe. But not the cle as you can only hit the outermost escort (or the whole group) with CEDS. If the entire group were crippled then you could include the whole group into a combined pursuit DD attack. CEDS lets you hit either the group, or the outermost escort. Pursuit lets you hit multiple cripples if you could otherwise legally target them individually.


It should be noted that Joe Stevenson (former FEAR) thought that you *could* direct on each escort in turn (as per the 2007 Q&A archive). Nick confirmed that you could only target the entire group as a whole, or kill the outermost escort, but not kill one escort at a time.

*~*

So in the case of the crippled CVS,CLE,EFF, if you don't have enough damage to kill the whole group, you only have the option to kill the EFF.

Unless F&E2K10 changed the wording?

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 02:39 pm: Edit

I've always read that rule to mean that you could never attack an inner escort even during pursuit, as Kevin points out. Please review this ruling, as I think it is a major change to how things are played.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 03:14 pm: Edit

I fixed the wording in my earlier ruling and dropped the example.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Kevin, if you disagree, then put your official appeal in the Q&A section.

I think it's a big change myself and no one I've ever played with has ever done it the way of the ruling - but whatever. It wasn't until I started a game with Joe that he suggested that what was in the ruling was correct. /me shrugs.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 03:39 pm: Edit

The specific rule (307.41) is quite definitive and does not give any exceptions in this very specific case of grouping and attacking crippled units in pursuit.

The GEDS system is the overall general rule for damaging and destroying escort groups.

Bottom line: Pursuit is a very dangerous place for ALL crippled units and (307.41) does not list any exceptions that would exclude any and all crippled GEDS escorts from a combined directed damage attack on cripples in the pursuit step.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 03:46 pm: Edit

Personally I have no problem with the ruling, but I do think it has created an exception to 307.41 - see my new question.

May be for the best. I get frustrated when a player cripples all inner escorts and a CV and leaves. Makes the cripples all immune to attack when they do that (using my old understanding of the ruling). Under the ruling, a player may no longer protect his crippled escorts this way - they will be vulnerable assuming enough damage is done to punch through the uncrippled outer escort.

Das ist gut.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Chuck, in the example in Q&A Rulings, you specify that crippled escorts get an escort bonus.

By 308.111 they definitely do not. Please fix your example to not refer to the bonus.

I am not saying your ruling about directing on multiple crippled ships in a carrier group is incorrect, only that the calculation that was given in the example is incorrect (because crippled ships do not get an escort bonus).

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Richard,

I think what is asserted is that the bonus *does* apply from *other* *uncrippled* escorts in the group. The only thing that was unclear was whether a crippled escort also contributes to an outer escort under attack (I thought it did).

Anyway. That's another argument.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 04:40 pm: Edit

It says there is no "per escort" bonus if the escort is crippled. So that's pretty clear I think.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 05:21 pm: Edit

So wait. If for example I have:

[CVS]-CLE-EFF

Is this ruling saying the CVS can be targetted during pursuit even though it's part of a carrier group?

I can see in the case of CVS-[CLE]-[EFF] that both the crippled escorts could be vulnerable in pursuit (assuming both were targetted) but we still have to follow the group rules right? In other words you can target the crippled CLE but only if the crippled EFF was also targetted.

Right?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Robert, right - BUT - you'd have to go through the CLE and EFF first. Which is effectively the same as targeting the whole group in your example.

By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 05:52 pm: Edit

from robert's examples

if we are still subject to 308.1112 in pursuit, the [CLE] in the second group is not a permissible target. if we regard 308.1112 as superseded by 307.41, there is no basis for why the [CVS] should be protected by its escorts (in pursuit), or why the [EFF] in the second group should need to be targeted with/before the [CLE].

i believe the ruling to be internally inconsistent.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 05:59 pm: Edit

I'll consult with FEAR...so allow me to issue a stay on implementation to review it a bit more....

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 06:00 pm: Edit

In either case, it is my belief that crippled escorts do not receive the escort bonus.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 10:57 pm: Edit

Richard, correct. See:

308.111: "There is no "per escort bonus" if the escort is crippled." Last sentence of that rule.

Chris,

In my example I believe the [CLE] is ONLY targetable IF the [EFF] is also part of the one directed damage attack that can target multiple crippled units. But I suppose I could be wrong.

Ted,

So what you're saying is that in the case of [CVS]-CLE-EFF, the rule allowing the targetting of more than one crippled unit would not be used since the group as a whole would have to be targetted to destroy the [CVS]. Since there is an uncrippled unit in that group, even if the pursuer has enough damage to target other uncrippled ships he/she could not do it since the ability to target one or more crippled units is limited to crippled units and the 3CVS in this case contains two un-crippled units.