| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - 03:50 pm: Edit |
Units coming out of CDR are still converted during the production phase.
Please cite the rule where a newly built tug can repair a base, and that is out of sequence?
Quote:(509.35) RESTRICTED MISSIONS: A tug cannot perform missions D or J on the turn it is produced.
===============
(509.1-J1) Repair a Base: A tug can be assigned this mission
during the Phasing Player Turn at the moment of (420.6)
repair (2A3). Groups of theater transports can perform this mission
(509.23). An LTT can be assigned this mission and can perform
it just as a tug can. The transport is subject to (308.453).
| By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - 04:11 pm: Edit |
You're just being cantankerous because a certain OB is wrong...
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - 04:47 pm: Edit |
What OB?
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - 05:26 pm: Edit |
FEDS & FEAR try to be factual and to the point in the F&E Q&A topic.
Detailed discussions of Q&A issues are conducted in the F&E Q&A Discussions topic.
| By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - 09:43 pm: Edit |
FEAR or FEDS any feedback on my Stasis vs Carrier question?
| By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Thursday, August 08, 2013 - 03:40 pm: Edit |
Follow up question regarding involuntary retreats of POLs
Quote:FEDS: This is a case of involuntary movement so the POL must stay with the fleet and their retreat priorities. When the POL moves again it must follow the existing rules; it is not forced to move back.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, August 09, 2013 - 09:53 am: Edit |
Tim:
Police units are NOT organized, trained or equipped to for garrison duties. The only duties police units can perform outside of their home territory is escort duty per (531.0).
FEDS SENDS
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, August 09, 2013 - 07:54 pm: Edit |
Chuck, if there are other ships there that can pull garrison duty, can police boat be there with them? Splitting hairs, one could say the police are escorting the garrison ships ......
Garth L. Getgen
| By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, August 10, 2013 - 11:43 pm: Edit |
Question: Under (523.424) an X-Starbase can convert standard warships to X-Ships regardless of the conversion cost. Under (450.17) minor shipyards can produce X-Ships as long as the base hull type produced is allowed in that type of shipyard. Would a Major Conversion yard be capable of converting standard warships to X-Ships as any base hull type can be converted in that yard? Or would a Major Conversion yard be capable of converting an X-Ships to an X-variant of the base X-hull?
This might be a stretch, but the rule does not say in regards to conversion and I would like to know if this possible.
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 11, 2013 - 12:53 pm: Edit |
Q302.33 Do fighters from PDUs or carriers in the support echelon require a command slot to fill out a full squadron of fighters under (302.332)? Ex: Kzinti Force consists of 2xCVL (4.5 fighters each), 6 Fighters from a PDU, and 3 more fighters from any available source.
Obviously the 9 fighters from the CVLs are free as their carriers are included in the battle force. The 6 fighters from a PDU requires 1 command slot as it is an independent squadron in the battle force. This accounts for 15 of a possible 18 fighters allowed.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, August 13, 2013 - 07:35 pm: Edit |
Turtle: (302.351) Each squadron of six (or fewer) fighter factors (not
Quote:
necessarily from the same ship) or six (or fewer) PFs counts as a
“ship” for purposes of the Command Rating when employed separately
from the base, carrier, or PFT. See heavy fighters‡ (530.113)
for exceptions and restrictions.
Note that partial ship equivalents [see (501.9) for fighters
and (502.46) for PFs] count against the command limits but do
not count as a full ship. Fighters, PFs, and crippled ships can be
combined into ship equivalents; see (203.542).
Hydran hybrid ships can send their fighters forward in this
manner, but in that case they would count against the limit of
fighter squadrons in the battle.
FEDS SENDS
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, August 13, 2013 - 07:42 pm: Edit |
Q302.351 Can a squadron of 3 independent fighter factors be combined with a crippled ship to all together take only one slot in a battle force?
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, August 13, 2013 - 08:27 pm: Edit |
Crippled ships always count a one ship for command purposes.
FEDS SENDS
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 10:15 am: Edit |
Q307.41 How does (307.41) interact with a mauler (308.4) and GEDS (308.1) with regards to exposed crippled escorts and the ability to group the cripples as a single directed damage attack?
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 12:43 pm: Edit |
Turtle:
Please check back about two months as this has been asked and answered.
| By Michael Alan Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Thursday, August 15, 2013 - 05:50 pm: Edit |
Is a unit which has used (449.13) [to deliver EPs to the WYN star cluster and which has remained there] in supply if it is cannot draw supply from the owning empire's supply grids?
If said unit is not in supply, could the owning empire's WYNCOVIA account be used to pay the WYNs to provide supply to the unit in question?
| By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Friday, August 16, 2013 - 11:39 am: Edit |
(528.26) says that Penal Ships cannot be part of battlegroups.
But the Klingon SIT says that they can.
Which is correct?
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, August 16, 2013 - 09:52 pm: Edit |
Pete: (528.26) BG: Penal ships cannot be part of Battle Groups.
The rule is correct and the SIT is wrong.
Quote:
Turtle:
Please make a note of this in the appropriate SIT fix topic.
FEDS SENDS
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, August 17, 2013 - 07:29 pm: Edit |
SIT reports submitted as requested.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 12:31 pm: Edit |
Q449.13 Is a unit which has used (449.13) [to deliver EPs to the WYN star cluster and which has remained there] in supply if it is cannot draw supply from the owning empire's supply grids?
If said unit is not in supply, could the owning empire's WYNCOVIA account be used to pay the WYNs to provide supply to the unit in question?
A449.13 See(503.15) "Supply cannot be drawn through or from a neutral hex." The WYN cluster general rule enforces this. The trade part with the WYN cluster is a specific rule and does not cover the part of the general rule in (503.15), hence reference to (503.15) for the answer.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 02:21 pm: Edit |
Fixed, thank you! - FEAR
Q449.13 Is a units which has used (449.13) (to deliver EPs to the WYN star cluster and which has remained there) able to draw supply from the owning empire's supply grid?
(503.15) seems to say no, which would (for example) keep the coalition from moving a cargo ship more than three hexes out of the WYN if they had left it there on a previous turn.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 03:34 pm: Edit |
Richard, is that another question or discussion to be taken to the discussion topic?
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 04:22 pm: Edit |
It is another question.
| By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - 08:03 am: Edit |
Q302.741: May slow units retreat from a hex while a colony with no PDUs is still active, or must they remain with the colony?
This ambiguity arises because 302.741 cites "if the unit left behind is a base station, battle station, mobile base, PDU, or starbase (or other bases and colonies in future products)" yet in the actual colony rules in PO, 446.31 states "A colony is a planet for purposes of the rules" (rather than a base, as 302.741 would imply)
This becomes an issue because a player cannot voluntarily resolve damage on their own colony per 446.42. This means if 302.741 does govern, slow units are entirely incapable of escape from a colony (as the attacker may simply choose not to damage the colony until every slow unit in the hex is destroyed).
| By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - 10:26 am: Edit |
Q525.21: Question regarding converting HDWs (and by association JGPs and LNHs).
Going by the ISC SIT, it seems pretty clear that if a HDW is built for any mission other than Combat, that the extra 1 EP for the mission is charged (or the operations group is needed). This is in line with the rule:
Quote:(525.21) If a HDW is built configured for any mission (525.23) except K-Combat, the cost of the reconfiguration is paid at the time of construction. There is no discount for a "double conversion" (437.0). If an HDW is converted from a DW variant of the same type (e.g., DWS converted to HDWS) then the extra cost is not charged. Such conversions do not, however, eliminate the cost of the operations groups, so it is not cost effective to convert a DWV into an HDW-V.
Quote:(521.23) PRODUCTION: Each player can substitute one ground combat ship for an equivalent hull type in each turn's production. (The cost is the same as the basic type; there is no extra charge for the Marines and no discount for the lower attack factor.)
Each player can also convert one other ship per turn to the ground combat version of the same hull type for a cost of 2 points (3 points for ships with GG ratings).
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |