Gary, thanks for asking these, since Richard and I are fixing to try out 601/2 and 624 concurrently.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, January 31, 2014 - 05:22 pm: Edit

Actually, there was one other other point which came up elsewhere.

*In (624.54), the ISC are permitted to build SRs, "up to a maximum of eight". Since the Y168 OOB has four SRs off-map already, and the scout exception in (624.43) allows the ISC to build an SR in a Spring turn, send it off-map immediately (where it has to stay for the remainder of the scenario), and still built a scout in the Fall turn, this would allow an ISC player to build up the number of off-map SRs to 8 (as shown on the Y186 OOB used for the Pacification scenario) if using the Spring turns only. However, is the intent to allow the ISC to build more SRs in the Fall turns (in order to get the number of off-map SRs up to 8 sooner, or to have as many as 12 SRs off-map overall, or to allow the "spare" SRs to be used on the map if playing this scenario in tandem with the provisions in Strategic Operations); or should the rule be edited to say instead that no more than 8 SRs can exist on- or off-map at any one time?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 12:01 am: Edit

Turtle:

Send me a short write-up that fix the issues raised above in the Gathering Winds scenario.

Note: This scenario, while based on historical events, is a higher abstraction designed to allow for playability. (This is not a RULES question so I will ask again that these types of questions NOT be asked in this topic.)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 12:10 pm: Edit

(624.0) Gathering Winds Issues

1. The ISC start with extra MBs that allow them to build 1 per turn so they have enough MBs to complete the original border bases at the rate of 1 per turn using the existing rules. The extra at start MBs were purposely added to avoid a special rule about producing more than one MB in a given turn. See (431.21). If the ISC player loses a MB that results in VPs for the Romulan/Gorn player(s), and is accounted for in the Victory Conditions.

2. No change required here: The ISC must build the outer ring of BATS to help secure their border. See the Scenario description at the beginning of (624.0). Text included: This scenario is a historical eastern-map variant showing the ISC expansion to their original borders during the opening years of the General War. This also shows why the ISC studied and concentrated on logistics that led to the development of the pacification stations and their emplacement procedures used in the Driving Winds scenario (625.0).

3. (624.261) add text at end: "The ISC conduct their SOP operations as the Coalition." The rule already states that the Romulan and Gorn player(s) conduct their SOP operations as the Alliance player.

4. Ignored as above.

5. (624.54) already limits the number of Survey Ships to a maximum of 8. Add text at end of rule: "including the 4 at start SRs off map. "

FEDS SENDS

Please move any discussions of these issues to the discussions topic.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, February 07, 2014 - 01:52 am: Edit

Q442.42 It is turn 7, the Hydrans have lost their capital but are still on-map. Do the Hydrans receive the Hydran Guild Treasury Bonus (at 5 EP a turn, as they're not all off-map)?

My opponent says that if they still had the capital, they would, but because of the sentence 'In this case the IC cannot be built because the shipyard was not destroyed', they do not receive the bonus.

I contend that that sentence is just to explain that the IC cannot be built if the shipyard was not destroyed and is not meant to mean that you get no bonus in such a case.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, February 07, 2014 - 02:55 am: Edit

Regardless of Hydran shipyard capture status, he Hydrans receive the Guild bonus of 5EP/turn starting no earlier than turn #7 (or later) once the Federation enters full war status as an enemy of the Klingons.

FED SENDS

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 06:38 pm: Edit

(450.21) While Medium Shipyards clearly cannot produce the CW DW and FF class ships on an empire's schedule, can they use downgrade substitutions to produce these (within the standard limits) in lieu of other ships?

For example, the Hydrans have completed a medium shipyard, and being short on funds wish to substitute an FF (CU) for a RN on the schedule.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, February 10, 2014 - 01:51 am: Edit

Correction, HN not CU.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 10, 2014 - 01:00 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

(450.21) Status: Medium shipyards include all production of the original capital shipyard except for FFs, DWs, and CWs. This includes auxiliaries, free fighters, convoys, monitors, etc. A player could use a combination of a Medium shipyard and smaller shipyards to rebuild the same general capability as his original capital shipyard.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, February 17, 2014 - 04:52 pm: Edit

Q302.133 in view of the sequence of play: do you select the flag from all available ships prior to withdrawal, or only from the non-withdrawn ships?

The last sentence in 302.133 says one of the three units with the largest command rating must remain behind and be the flagship. Does this sentence apply to all ships in the hex prior to withdrawal, or only to ships remaining after withdrawal? The answer is not clear from the rule itself.

However, the SoP says conduct withdrawal in step 5-1C, *and then* subsequently select the flag of the non-withdrawing force in step 5-1D. Thus, the SoP appears to be more specific as it actually says *when* you select the flag of the non-withdrawing force.

The answer can change which ship has to be left behind. For example, consider a force of 3*D7C F5L and 3*E4 conducting opposed withdrawal versus an overwhelming enemy pin count. If you follow the order listed in the SOP you may withdraw forces first (say, 3*D7C) and then select the flag of the non-withdrawing force from the three remaining. The Klingon selects an E4 as the flag as one of the three best *remaining* ships, and offers it up to the war gods of the Alliance.

However, if you select the flag *first* before you conduct withdrawal, from all available ships in the hex, then the Klingon will have no choice but to select a D7C to offer up to the war gods of the Alliance - as there are 3 D7Cs and if you select the flag before you conduct withdrawal then obviously one of the three best flags is a D7C.

So, which ship must be the flag and die? The D7C or the E4?

If the D7C, then please explain why you get this result when Step 5-1D has you select the flagship of the *non-withdrawing* force after conducting withdrawal in step 5-1D.

If the E4, then please explain why the last sentence of 302.133 does not require the D7C to be the command.

It is my contention the sequence of play is the more specific rule here, as 302.133 does not specify whether selecting "one of the three units with the largest command rating" is determined before or after conducting withdrawal - but the sequence of play does seem to make this answer clear.

Thank you for your consideration and ruling.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, February 17, 2014 - 06:56 pm: Edit

302.16 has some additional information that imo should be considered for this question.

By Mike Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Question about Salvage of retreating ships.

Do ships destroyed in Slow Unit Retreat provide salvage?

The restrictions for salvage are listed in FO pg 4 rule 439, and specifically

---

Quote:

(439.17) Ships lost by the pursued force in a pursuit battle do not provide salvage to either player.

---

---

Quote:

...A: The pursuing player forms a legal non-pursuit Battle Force. This non-pursuit force can use things such as free scouts, command points, etc. which are not used in pursuit force. The pursuit force, if any, can only use units taken from this Battle Force... The pursuit battle is then fought. The pursuing player may divide plus/minus points from the original battle between the pursuit and slow unit battle as he sees fit. Plus or minus points from the pursuit battle do not carry over to the slow unit battle.

B: Remaining units from the Original Battle Force not used in the pursuit force may then engage in (non pursuit) combat with the slow units...

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, February 27, 2014 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Q307.31: This rule requires "excess [crippled] ships do not count in the combat potential but can be damaged." Clearly the pursuer can use directed damage against the excess crippled ships. However, are these excess ships subject to being damaged by normal "taken" damage?

I ask this question because there was a recent slow pursuit ruling that states that slow ships outside of the command limits are NOT subject to being damaged in this way during slow pursuit. Thus, it stands to reason that "excess" crippled ships in regular pursuit are also not subject to damage in this way, notwithstanding what otherwise appears to be black letter in 307.31.

Ruling requested. Thank you.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, February 27, 2014 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Tim: Can you point out the date of the ruling?

If one claims there is a past ruling then one is obligated to point out the date, time, and location of said ruling.

FEDS

By Mike Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, February 27, 2014 - 04:33 pm: Edit

For clarification I post the rule here will comment in Q&A discussions

---

Quote:

(307.31)CREATION: The retreating player must form his Battle Force as follows. First include all crippled ships, then add up to three uncrippled ships. From this force designate a flagship. If the Battle Force exceeds the Command Rating the force is used as is although excess ships (specified by the owner) do not count in the Combat Potential but can be damaged. If the Battle Force does not exceed the Command Rating of the flagship additional uncrippled ships may be added up to the maximum ratung.

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 12:15 pm: Edit

Search does not help me for this question. It is not in the errata file.

Q314.25 Can the defender of a raid voluntarily retreat? In this case, a Fed CVL has fought a FD7 and destroyed it. Can it then retreat (regardless of the small scale combat result)?

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 02:59 pm: Edit

I did come across this if it helps:

---

Quote:

(314.274) The defending ship (if it survived) remains in the raid target hex (or a hex it retreated into) and operates from that point normally. It could later use reaction movement in
the Operational Movement Phase of the same turn.

---

---

Quote:

(314.244) The raiding ship and reacting ship (or equivalent) combined with any defending units already in the hex then fight one round of single combat. Players must use the advanced small combat rule (31 8.7) [which, for a single-ship duel, will default back to (310.0)]. A defending unit could decline battle, and the Raid would then be resolved under (314.252).

...

B: A defender forced to retreat would do so under the normal rules for retreating (ignoring all raiding ships for all purposes). There is no pursuit by the raiding unit. Destroyed defending ships yield salvage points for their owners except under (314.26). Note that slow units (e.g., monitors) could be forced to retreat. This would be done normally (rather than the slow unit retreat rules) since the raiding ship is in no position to pursue them.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 06:54 am: Edit

The OLD single ship combat rule had a result that required retreat; the AO raid rules referenced these old rules and aspects under (318.7) ADVANCED SMALL-SCALE COMBAT. The new small-scale combat rules under (310.0) now allow for retreat to be a choice.

---

Quote:

(318.73) LARGER FORCE: In the event that the size of forces involved exceeds the limits of (318.72)[FEDS: Now (310.0)], you must use the normal combat rules.

(318.731) In the case of raid combat (314.28), the combat must be continued for multiple rounds (accumulating plus/minus points if necessary) until one side is destroyed or voluntarily retreats. This is an exception to the raid rules (314.244B) and (314.28) which normally provide only one round of combat.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 05:32 pm: Edit

I request for clarification regarding *when* defenders of a raid may choose to retreat. Also, what does "after combat" mean? I also request that an official amendment to the SoP be posted so that it is known *precisely* when a defending player can retreat from a raid.

Because the SoP and the rules provide no provision for retreating after a raid, please advise *when* defenders of a raid may choose to retreat.

*After* the initial raid battle but before the raider has an opportunity for a special attack? After the opportunity for a special attack but not before? Does the defender have two retreat chances - once after the initial combat and once after all raid combat is over in the hex?

Example to clarify the issue:

A Romulan SUP raids a lone Federation FFT caught in an otherwise empty hex that is original, un-captured and un-disrupted Federation territory. As a reaction the Federation player calls up a POL to help with the defense.

The Federation player states that he will only present the called-up POL for combat during the raid battle, holding the FFT back from the "battle line." The Romulan SUP then destroys the POL and suffers no casualties in return. The Romulan player then announces that he will conduct a special attack and duel the FFT. The Federation player asserts that no such opportunity exists, as the FFT will retreat from the hex "after" the initial raid combat - effectively denying the Romulan player the ability to conduct a special attack against the FFT (though the province could still be disrupted).

The Romulan player states that - under the ruling just posted - it is not yet "after combat" because the SUP has not yet conducted its special attack.

Note that if it is ruled that a defending ship may retreat before a special attack - or has two opportunities to retreat - then the special attack will almost never happen any more for ships in original friendly territory as a called up free POL will be offered for the sacrifice and the real target of the raid will slip away.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 07:01 pm: Edit

Two questions -

Can the FFT be held out of the initial battle?

Can the SUP conduct two (simultaneous) raids?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Of course the FFT can be held out of the initial battle.

Of course the SUP cannot conduct two simultaneous raids.

What creates the uncertainty about this that motivated you to ask these questions? Context would help.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Please keep discussions or debates in the Q&A Discussions topic.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 01:09 am: Edit

Q312.232

Is the Klingon player forced to assign numbers for fighter factors if there are fewer than three eligible ships that can be assigned numbers for random selection?

I think that it is not the case (312.236).

Some disagree (this was in the discussion about the SFG example I am working on).

---

Quote:

(312.236) Individual fighter factors and PFs are not considered targets for purposes of (312.232) unless the Attacker selects them.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 12:12 pm: Edit

RBE:

The answer is above.

By Mike Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, March 13, 2014 - 07:48 pm: Edit

In the GW, the Romulans can attack the Federation before the 10th turn....and if this is true where is it in the rulebook......Thanks Michael Oliver