Just for the record, when I wrote what the previous ruling was (from Nick, Dec 7th, 2005), I wasn't saying I agree with it.

Personally in my games, I allow the targeting of each cripple in turn. But don't take that as good precedent. After all, I use a system that allows targeting the inner escort without even having to go through the outer escort.

So Chuck, when you review the previous interpretations, feel free to overrule it however you wish. Do whatever you feel is best for the game. I was just stating what came before, not what I believe *should* be.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, June 29, 2013 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Missed the various post before asking in Q&A.

I think there will be massive implications if you can target more than crippled ship in the a group.

Namely - how often do the Alliance get the chance to kill more than 1 ship in persuit - and when it happens, due to Maulers how often do the Coalition kill 3 crippled ships?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, June 30, 2013 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Well, before we get too excited, Chuck did say he was going to consult with Mike C. He might check with other folks. Let's see what the final ruling comes down as.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, June 30, 2013 - 02:51 pm: Edit

Indeed, FEAR and FEDS are discussing this.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, July 14, 2013 - 07:28 pm: Edit

From FEAR:

Richard, there was no yes or no, just rules references for you to look it up yourself. Tread carefully here...

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, July 14, 2013 - 07:30 pm: Edit

I found those rules without trouble (before you posted). However, those rules don't say if you can move a MB/FRD/PDU with an allied tug rather than the owning empire's tug. I've always avoided the question by never actually moving such a unit with an allied tug, but I am curious myself as to the answer.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, July 20, 2013 - 08:15 pm: Edit

Moving them, I don't think is a problem, setting them up to use their functions might be (well, the FRD should be useable regardless of who is doing the towing)...

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 02:05 am: Edit

Lawrence Bergen asked some questions:

Couple of questions?

Q1. I captured a z-BC on T1C. The Lyrans are planning a conversion of it to their tech and then converting it to an SR. I read (305.45) the capture rules. Is there a ruling or restriction I am missing whether or not a captured ship can be converted to a survey ship?

Q2. The Lyrans T1C are converting their home world TGP to a Survey Ship as their Major Conversion and subbing a TGC for the CA...The SR did go to the Far Stars Area. Opponent challanged me on it but the SR construction rules (542.24) seem to say it should be fine. What say you oh wise one?

Q3. How about something on the D6N/D7N T1 unconversion question from 07/05/2013?

Thanks.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 02:08 am: Edit

Q1: Not that I know of. Conversion cost of captured units is doubled though, so you may not want to do this for 10 points (305.45).

Q2: Out of curiosity, did your opponent quote a rule that forbid it?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 03:08 pm: Edit

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 01:57 pm: Edit


(521.38) - The defending GCE can be given up in place of a DefBat or SIDS destroyed by (521.34)

(451.32) - A hospital ship can be held in the support echelon of a fleet. They are able to attempt to "heal" dead or wounded G factors.

Question then. Can a Hospital ship cure a GCE that has been given up in place of a successful assault? That would mean that the damage has been basically undone. It seems a bit much to me, but I eagerly await a ruling.


Pete, I believe that is the intent. G factor does not have a crippled side. So the only result is that the G is restored to combat strength.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Turtle, I think Pete's issue is that he doesn't like the idea of "losing" a G factor and resurrecting it after the damage is taken, as in, "the damage has been undone".

My personal take on this is two fold:

1) This resurrection result (bringing Gs back after they've been voluntarily given up to save a PDU or stops a G-inflected SIDS) is the primary intent of the hospital ship rule.

2) The rule assumes that when a G is "killed", many of the marines that compose the G are "casualties" in the sense that they are wounded past the capacity to fight; not necessarily dead. The hospital ship obviously can't resurrect the dead, but it can return the wounded to the front line - enough of them so that the fighting effectiveness of the lost G is restored.

My 2 cents.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 05:08 pm: Edit

That's how I think of it as well.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 11:27 pm: Edit

As an aside I did find a ruling in CL38 that said DIP cannot be separated from the Diplomatic ships. And quoted the rule (540.34).

The wording on the actual rule is a bit confusing in my own opinion as the rule quoted is clear but the contradiction from the section above makes it look as if this may be a player option and not an actual restriction.

I contend that if it is going to be ruled that under no circumstances can a player choose to unconvert the N ships that the Klingons should only be able to expand their diplomatic corp by building a specific Diplomatic ship and not use the "other ships...even cargo ships" as quoted from the rule.

I would say that in the thread of Chuck's idea (that a Diplomat would quit in protest over being pulled from his D#N ship and placed on a lesser craft) that the same would be for that extra Diplomat being built.

Chuck your comment about no loss of Diplomatic capability is more like releasing a restriction placed on the Klingons.

"I have to ride on what?" No sir! I'd rather mop decks on a D5J sent to the Tholian zone after quitting the DIP corp."

I would suggest that the ruling in CL38 be appealed and that the Klingons have the option to have 3xDIP replace the D7N and D5N (should be D6N) at the GW start. I would even give up the two hulls for the opportunity to use the extra DIP to negotiate a planet on the Fed border or bolster the Romulans from T2.

Just sayin'

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Yeah, it's a pisser - The D7N is very much crappier than 2 DIPs acting separately. But, it is what it is. My solution has been just to buy an extra diplomat for 10 EPs.

If you *really* hate the D7N, then bring it into combat and put it on the front line. The Alliance will probably see it as a juicy target for the many-EP "loss" it will represent. Then re-buy the two diplomats separately for 10 EPs each...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 03:06 pm: Edit

No. The Klingons start with what they start with, and cannot divorce diplomats from ships. They do not have and will not get an option to take Dips instead of Ns.

They can build extra diplomats (on Ns or separately) under the rules.

The rules are what they are. Feel free to call that a final ruling with no option to appeal.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 08:12 am: Edit

Previous ruling on WYN trade and blockade runs, relevant to Pete's current Q&A: I found this covered in a previous ruling (second to last paragraph).

Q449.0 May a player with ships already in the WYN Cluster use blockade running to move an unlimited number of cargo, EP-carrying ships out of the WYN cluster?

A449.0 A couple of issues with this question.
One: Raid pools are limited by (314.10), (320.14), (320.51), and (320.511), so, no, you can’t use unlimited number of ships. As a non Federation/Klingon empire you could have a maximum of three ships doing blockade runs until the raid pool is expanded in the Spring of Y176 (Turn #16) which increases this number by two. Federation/Klingon raid pools are one ship larger. (314.10)

Two: Blockade running into the WYN Cluster consists of two steps, one, entrance into the cluster, drop cargo or pick up cargo per (320.512), and return. So, for example, on Turn # 1 the Kzinti use a TGT to deliver 6 EPs to the WYN resulting in a WYNCOVIA balance of 9 EPs (1.5 times 6) per (449.131). This rule (449.131) does not allow the balance to be withdrawn until Turn #2 or later.

The TGT then returns back to the Kzinti raid pool, leaving the Cluster by rule (449.13). Note: the TGT could end its blockade run by staying in the Cluster and not be interned per rule (449.13) and (320.514). But, the TGT will no longer be part of the raid pool (320.11).

To continue the example: On Turn #2 the TGT stays in the raid pool and does another blockade run starting with no cargo and this time picking up the 9 EPs in the WYNCOVIA account and returning to the Kzinti capital. Another EP-carrying ship could occupy one of the other raid pool slots and take six more EPs to the WYN Cluster.

Bottom Line: A ship cannot take cargo to and from the Cluster in the same turn based on (320.512) “The ship moves to the hex, picks up or drops off suitable cargo, and then returns to where it began. And a limited number of ships can be used for blockade running in one turn (314.10), (320.14), (320.51), and (320.511).

This answer required no ruling as this information was all in the rules. True, it was in four different locations, but remember that rules must be taken as a whole, and not piecemeal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, July 29, 2013 - 10:20 am: Edit

---

Quote:

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 09:30 am: Edit

Just to be clear and with untold amounts of respect for the FEAR and the FEDS:

I am invoking appeal here because I specifically want this to be brought to Steve. In this case while I understand the previous ruling I am not sure of designer intent . However, even beyond the issue of intent I would argue that the rule as it currently stands makes Wyn trade unduly difficult for the Kzintis and the Klingons.

---

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - 12:04 pm: Edit

How are the Klingons sending those 4xE4T into the WYN Cluster? Only one blockade run can go to a singe hex from a given empire, so my understanding is they're all walking a circle between the WYN and Klinshai. Have I got that correct?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - 02:39 pm: Edit

Dan, yes. They walking a circle during operational movement.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - 09:29 am: Edit

Over in Q+A, Chuck wrote:
>>PB: Fighting retreat... >>

Heh. Thanks! Yeah, it is nice when all the answers are actually right there. Sorry for the hassle :-)

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Wow, that gives the Kzinti DNL targets to chase from the raid pool. But then, the DNL isn't chasing cripples with a pursuit force when in the raid pool so maybe it's worth it.

I alternate tug missions in my blockade run for the Klingons. Send 8 EP in this turn, get 10 out next turn. Every few turns I divert an E4T to pick up the extra and zip home or let the Lyran pick it up if he's managing a lot of my repairs for me.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, August 01, 2013 - 12:58 pm: Edit

ATTENTION F&E PLAYERS:

FEDS has recommended deletion of several scenario reports to ADB. Please take steps to notify ADB in the topic recommended for deletion if you wish to retain the data.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 01, 2013 - 07:51 pm: Edit

Which topics are those? In a general sense?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 01, 2013 - 09:16 pm: Edit

Reports from the front I believe.

By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 06:54 pm: Edit

richard

starting the turn in the WYN zone does not ipso facto put a klingon ship out of supply. see 411.1- the WYN hex isn't part of the supply route so its status as neutral is irrelevant.

edit: no longer 100% certain that's the question you were asking. sorry if i answered something irrelevant