Q509.1:

I'm trying to understand how tug-pod assignments now work in 2010. By the older rules, tug missions could only be assigned during the Economics Phase or Production IF the Tug was newly built. That was pretty easy to remember.

Now, with the new rules in 509.1, some missions can be assigned at various times in the turn, while some others still have the original restriction, or have new ones (like Repair a Base) mission.

So, I had a situation where I had a tug that at the beginning of the turn was carrying Carrier Pods. I had not assigned those pods that turn, they had been assigned previously. And of course I forgot to change my tug mission at the start of the turn. DRAT. But then I remembered that 2010 has the flexible tug rules, so I was saved from my mistake.

Or so I thought.

So I read in the rules and saw the following for the Battle Tug mission (509.1-A):

---

Quote:

A tug or LTT can be assigned a battle pod (509.34) during the Phasing Player Turn at the moment it begins Operational Movement or Strategic Movement, or is placed in a Reserve Fleet, or as part of the Final Activity Phase (IOC), or at the moment it is assigned to the raid pool (pod delivery blockade run).

---

---

Quote:

All tugs and LTTs may (but do not have to be) assigned missions during the Assign Missions Phase of Economics (1G) or Production (2B7). Certain specific missions can also be assigned at other points in the Sequence of Play as noted below. Many of these missions are in expansions, and are marked with the double-dagger which marks expansion rules. Once a mission is selected it cannot be changed until the owner's next turn. At the start of the turn, all tug assignements continue unless the player gives a tug or LTT a new assignment. "Unassigned (509.1-M) is a valid assignment and is the only one that can be changed during the turn.

---

---

Quote:

PHASE 1 F: Phasing Player declares missions for tugs and other transports (509.32). Some tugs and transports may have their missions assigned or changed later (509.1).
2B7: Asslgn missions to new tugs and transports (509.35). Assign tugs and transports Mission D (509.1).
3B2: Phasing Player moves ships and units within limitations of the rules; modular ships may be reconfigured by giving up movement and Economic Points [Romulan Modular Ships (433.432) and HDWs (525.222)]. Certain tug and transport missions may be assigned; see (509.1).
5-3C: Players secretly establish carrier and other escort groups (515.15). These cannot be changed until the Pursuit Phase. Exception (308.113). Certain tug and transport missions may be assigned; see (509.1).
6F: Crippled tugs may send pods back to the fleet pod pool(509.43).
7B: Deploy repair ships [and a repair tug from the capital (422.S)] to any SMN or FRD (422.3). Transports may be assigned mission E (509.1).
8A: Move eligible units via Strategic Movement (204.2). Some tugs and transports may be assigned new missions as per (509.1).
8B: Tugs in expeditionary fleets may exchange pods (411.75).
9A: Phasing Player establishes reserve units (507.1). Some tugs and transports may be assigned new missions as per (509.1 ).
1OC: All players assign transport missions as appropriate undersub-sections of (509.1).

---

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 02:46 pm: Edit

Did not see this in the 2010 eratta
(601.12) KZINTIS: Kzinti Marquis Fleet may move freely after the Klingons enter Kzinti territory, but must leave six ships from the original fleet, including a command cruiser, in the two provinces adjacent to the Federation Neutral Zone. The ships left behind cannot not count non-ship units, slow units, or auxiliaries.

Q. Does the last phrase mean that the ships left behind MUST contain the slow/non ships or that these do not count as part of the 6 ships?

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 03:27 pm: Edit

They have to be ships, not units.

SVC ENDORSEMENT: correct, it means that such listed units do not satisfy the requirement of six ships. Leave them or move them, whatever, but the don't count for the requirement of six ships.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, September 04, 2013 - 01:49 am: Edit

(531.4) Police Carriers (and their fighters). Can fighters from Police Carriers react? Can these fighters react into hexes containing 1 or more enemy units?

The rules explicitly list restrictions but reaction and entrance into an enemy hex are not listed. Would the fighters from such Police units be treated as any other single police entity? Or because they are attrition units they are expendable and can be used as 'the long arm of the law' reaching out to nab invaders?

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 11:55 am: Edit

(537.12) Infiltration: Once per turn, one resistance movement on the planet can attempt to infiltrate one of the ships (not bases) at the planet's location. Designate the target (which must be one of the 3 ships with the lowest defense factors).

Can this kill an FCR? That seems way powerful. It seems that the intent of the rule is to kill a small ship, not an expensive unit like an FCR.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 06:11 pm: Edit

Well a FCR is a small unit. IMO this just gives the attacker a reason to never keep FCRs over captured planets. Same goes for most auxes.

By James Cain (Jcain) on Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Regarding a carrier that conducts a (319) Offensive Fighter Strike or whose fighters conduct a (205.7) reaction, is the carrier part of the (302.563) Support Echelon?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 08:02 pm: Edit

If the fighters are in an adjacent hex, then no, it can't be...

SVC ENDORSEMENT. Stew is correct. If it's not in the same hex it cannot be in the support echelon.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Q518.12. Rule states "SWACs can only be produced in the original Federation capital shipyard." So if the FEDS loses the capital and rebuilds the capital shipyard off map the only way to build SWACS again is to recapture Earth and rebuild the shipyard there. Is this correct?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 09:28 pm: Edit

That is what it says. I doubt it would be so precisely written if it meant anything else.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, September 13, 2013 - 04:51 am: Edit

537.12 yes, it could kill an FCR. There are no exceptions and your question is asking for a list of exceptions to be added. It won't be added.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - 10:30 pm: Edit

Q314.27: What happens if a player raids a province they used to own, but had been captured by an enemy? Would the original player gain income from that province at the disrupted value?

Rule text:

---

Quote:

(314.27) PROVINCE DISRUPTION: If the raiding ship survives the battle without being crippled or forced to withdraw, the province in question is considered "disrupted" for the Defender's next player-turn (and the Attacker's next Economic Phase). This could mean that the four-turn period for long-term capture (438.1) would have to restart and the invader who captured the province gets no income from it on his next turn.

---

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, September 20, 2013 - 10:04 am: Edit

Q528.431:

With the new Small Scale Combat rules in the 2010 product, how is the single combat handled now with those rules?

Per the old 2K rules, single combat was a single die roll of 1D6 which could result in one of the following:

Attacker Destroyed
Attacker Crippled and Retreats
Attacker Retreats
Defender Retreats
Defender Crippled and Retreats
Defender Destroyed

But now in the new 310.0 rules, specifically 310.32 Retreat says:

---

Quote:

(310.32) RETREAT: One (and only one) "casualty" may also be resolved as a "Retreat" action using (302.72). This results in dunits belonging to that player retreating one hex

---

---

Quote:

Being forced to retreat takes the ship out of the battle force, but not out of the hex; it could be used in the Battle Force for a future round.

---

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Q501.61:

During a Capital Assault, after forces are split, can 501.61 be used to transfer fighters from a carrier or FCR in one system to a carrier in another system? This question would also apply to PFs and G Factors since they transfer like fighters.

---

Quote:

(501.61) BETWEEN ROUNDS: Ships and bases of the same empire in the same hex can transfer fighters between each other between Combat Rounds as long as the receiving unit has the capacity to hold the fighters. For example, a Federation FV group in the Reserve might give up its fighters to a CVB group in the Battle Force, allowing it to remain at full strength. Carriers which transfer fighters to other carriers are not in or supporting the Battle Force and cannot be attacked. In the case of Federation SWAC shuttles* see (518.32).

---

---

Quote:

(511.54) STEP 4: The Defending Player takes his static fleet and deploys it in the boxes of the first column in any or all of the system boxes; he can divide the ships or put them all in one system. Each ship/group can only be in one system. (Defense limited units must be assigned to specific planets.) These units cannot leave the system they are deployed in. If they do, they must retreat from the capital hex (if they can). Individual defending ships and groups can retreat from a capital hex [this is an exception to (302.72) which requires a simultaneous withdrawal by all forces], but they must all go to the same hex. Monitors‡ (519.0) are assigned to the fixed defenses of whatever planet they are assigned to and must be included in the Battle Force (and they use a command slot).

---

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Some recent converstions between FEDS and FEAR about WYN trade, recent rulings, and solutions:

Issue #1 – Blockade Runs.
(314.23) - Says that no more than one ship can be sent to any given province. This has led to the ruling that only one ship can be sent to the Wyn by blockade run. This means, for example, that the Klingons and Lyrans cannot both do it in the same raid phase. Note that the rule also says that raids cannot enter neutral territory and yet the Wyn Trade rule (449.13) specifically says that EPs can be sent to the cluster by blockade running, creating an exception to that rule.

Player Comments:
I think it’s probably intended that the blockade runs to the Wyn forms a special exception to the raid rules. My Proposal is that it be clearly stated that there is no restriction and that Ships from 2 more empires can enter the cluster with blockade running during the same raid phase.

FEDS: Concurs. Each empire may send one blockade runner per turn to the cluster as an exception to the general rule (314.23); the specific intention of (449.13) indicates this.

FEAR: As this series of questions indicates, the WYN cluster is a strange place in both astronomical terms and game terms. It is fitting. There are enough systems, rich in trade material and other facilities, to support multiple blockade runners (one per empire) over a full turn.

Issue #2 – Pick up and drop off of EPs.
(320.512) – This says that a ship moves to a hex and picks up or drops off suitable cargo. This had led the ruling that a ship can only drop off OR Pickup. However, the Sequence of play in ISC WAR clearly says: (3A-4H): Upon arrival at the target hex, a blockade runner may drop of and/or pick up suitable cargo. This is a clear contradiction and the ISC SoP is by far the more current document. This was the basis of my appeal in Q&A, but so far I haven’t seen any resolution on it.

Player Comments:
I think it makes sense to do it the way the sequence of play is written. There is obviously a contradiction, and the sequence of play is the more recent rule. In addition, Using the (350.512) rule makes the trading more onerous that I think it was intended to be.

FEDS: Based upon the ISC WAR SoP, a unit may perform one pickup AND one drop-off action per turn (OR one drop-off AND one pickup action per turn).

FEAR: The 2010 Edition SoP is the most current, and should be used in the above reference, but it is the same. Concur.

Issue #3 – Supply from the Wyn
This was a very recent issue. As players keep trying to bend their minds on the problems with Wyn trade, they keep on coming up with new solutions (best players in the world!). So, essentially the idea was that a ship would go to the Wyn and stay put, and then leave the Wyn the next turn.
However, (411.4) indicates that the supply route cannot pass through neutral territory. This led Mike to make the ruling that a ship in the cluster – which is in neutral territory – cannot draw supply. Therefore, it would mean that ANY ship that goes to the cluster will be out of supply for the next turn. I really think this cannot be what is intended by the Wyn rules.

Player Comments:
Wyn Trade forms an exception to (411.4). Ship in the cluster are in supply as the Wyns give them what they need since they want the trade.

FEDS: (449.13) The way I interpret the rule is that a unit conducting trade with the WYN is granted only enough supply for movement ONLY to exit the cluster; once outside the cluster it is subject the standard supply rules.

FEAR: The ship leaving the cluster must be able to draw supply from the hex it enters or be limited by out of supply movement costs (410.31).

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Additional Rule for consideration to Rob's Question above: (445.21) which provides that the fighters of the FSD itself may be transferred to a carrier with a valid supply path up to six hexes away between combat rounds.

(526.31) also states that FCRs may transfer fighters to carriers within the same hex at the end of the combat round.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Q501.61:

During a Capital Assault, after forces are split, can 501.61 be used to transfer fighters from a carrier or FCR in one system to a carrier in another system? This question would also apply to PFs and G Factors since they transfer like fighters.
________________________________________
Quote:
(501.61) BETWEEN ROUNDS: Ships and bases of the same empire in the same hex can transfer fighters between each other between Combat Rounds as long as the receiving unit has the capacity to hold the fighters. For example, a Federation FV group in the Reserve might give up its fighters to a CVB group in the Battle Force, allowing it to remain at full strength. Carriers which transfer fighters to other carriers are not in or supporting the Battle Force and cannot be attacked. In the case of Federation SWAC shuttles* see (518.32).
________________________________________


My opponent says that 511.54 would prohibit such transfer from occurring.


________________________________________
Quote:
(511.54) STEP 4: The Defending Player takes his static fleet and deploys it in the boxes of the first column in any or all of the system boxes; he can divide the ships or put them all in one system. Each ship/group can only be in one system. (Defense limited units must be assigned to specific planets.) These units cannot leave the system they are deployed in. If they do, they must retreat from the capital hex (if they can). Individual defending ships and groups can retreat from a capital hex [this is an exception to (302.72) which requires a simultaneous withdrawal by all forces], but they must all go to the same hex. Monitors‡ (519.0) are assigned to the fixed defenses of whatever planet they are assigned to and must be included in the Battle Force (and they use a command slot).
________________________________________


We have a capital assault in progress and a quick turnaround for this would be appreciated. Thanks!

First, if you have a question that is needing a quick turnaround in the future, don’t expect us to do so to meet your schedule. This is not just for the two of you, but for everyone. We all have other things to do and right now my professional/family life is limiting my contact time here. The Q&A does get done, maybe not as quick as some would like or as complete as some would like. But some questions do not need answers as the player/players may be rule hunting and we do not go there. There may be other reasons like something is being reviewed at the staff level and doesn’t need a comment on it at that time, or it is already fixed and going into a later product at the appropriate time. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

As today is slow, I am putting up an answer to this as it is really quite simple.

A501.61 A ship or base per (511.54 Step 4) cannot move from one static location to another, this is a political limitation not a limitation on the assets on such ships/bases. These are typically the things that are kept track of like coinage in the hex in question. There are only so many none PDU (which are not counted in this as they are not ships or bases by definition) fighters/PFs/G’s/etc. in a hex. They are freely exchangeable per (501.61) between rounds at the player’s discretion. (511.54 Step 4), again, only limits the ships/groups. There is nothing in this rule limiting the coinage elements of the ships that are freely exchangeable.

By Mike Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 04:54 pm: Edit

I would like to appeal the Wyn Cluster Supply ruling on the basis of a Supply Route does not include the hex the unit is in. Please see discussion for a bit more of an expanded explanation.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Mike, sorry about that I wasn't trying to force a quick answer. If anything I was just trying to bump it in the queue of other questions I have recently asked.

That being said, thanks for the quick response!

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, September 27, 2013 - 09:09 pm: Edit

I asked a question back on 10 Aug and would like to get an answer soon. This is important for my current game.

---

Quote:

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 Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 11:46 am: Edit

Roger that.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 10:18 am: Edit

Mike Curtis,

If fighters assigned to static forces in the capital are, according to your ruling, always considered part of mobile forces, wouldn't this mean that the ComPot of those fighters cannot be included for the 1/2 ComPot requirement of the static forces?

Or are you saying that fighter factors on ships are never considered when determining static vs. mobile ComPot?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 10:25 am: Edit

He's not saying they're part of mobile forces. If they were, you could do independent strikes in different star systems, which the rules clearly say you cannot.

He's saying they're transferable between rounds between carriers.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 10:43 am: Edit

Mr. DiMitri, are there rule references to your questions?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, October 06, 2013 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Question: Auto Kill vs Cloaked Fleet

A cloaked Romulan fleet uses their cloak to avoid the approach battle when attacking a planet. In the first round of the battle, their Fed opponents have a compot of 100+, BIR is 5+, and the Feds roll a 6.

Do the Romulans take a forced autokill?

(302.617) "1. A declined approach battle counts as a round of combat."

(306.3) "If used to avoid an approach battle, simply skip sub step 2A..."