Your missing something Ted. NZ Planet income via Diplomatic Trace (540.23) is Diplomatic Income. Once a neutral zone planet joins a given empire under (540.251) the planet ceases to produce diplomatic income under (540.23) and instead produces regular income under (430.0), subject to (450.253).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - 12:27 pm: Edit

>>However, I don't see an allowed conversion from SN to BH. So, based on that I'm not sure why Richard thinks it's legal at all?>>

It is specifically allowed by a line in the Romulan fleet OB, which is apparently a kludge for replacing SNEs which don't exist. Apparently, however, the conversion is expensive (3?), so probably not worth it.

By Mike Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Can you do trade with a NZ plnet? I thought it needed to be a capital planet of an empire basicallly everyone except the tholians but add in the LDR.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - 01:15 pm: Edit

Nope, cannot do trade with an NZ planet.

By Mike Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Peter,

What line in the Romulan OOB I cannot find it

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - 02:09 pm: Edit

704.4, but it only seems to appear in the 2010 OOB for the Romulans.

---

Quote:

Conversion of SN to BHE allowed until Advanced Operations provides SNE counters.

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - 02:41 pm: Edit

I did mention that is was 2010 related.

By Mike Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Yep you did Richard... I just forget there is a seperate OOB for 2010 Vanilla

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, March 23, 2014 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Q312.211 says that special abilities of units frozen do not function.

Is this the case for units with the carrier escort ability?

(312.271)'s last line 'as if the ship was not part of the group.'

So what 'escort' ability are you asking about?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, March 24, 2014 - 12:13 am: Edit

The last line of that rule only applies to defensive targeting.

The special abilities of an escort are (if I recall):

Immunity to targetting by directed damage if not the outer escort.
Defensive factor bonus if an outer escort.
Being part of the calculation for an outer escort's defensive factor bonus.

What I wonder is are these things nullified if an escort is frozen?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Rob, on Q314.27 - if you don't OWN the province in question(ie it's still captured), then you can't get any EP from it...the disruption keeps the Klingon from getting the income but does not entitle the Kzinti as it is still in Klingon hands...

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, April 09, 2014 - 08:21 am: Edit

Stewart,

Then why are the raid rules written to say it remains Disrupted for the Defending player's Turn AND the Attacking Player's next Economic Phase?

"By the Book", a Province can be in one of two states:

---

Quote:

Disrupted (430.21): "If a province contains one or more enemy ships and at least one friendly ship or base, the province is considered “disrupted”. A disrupted province produces only one Economic Point."

---

---

Quote:

Captured (430.22: "If the province contains no friendly units, only enemy units, the province is deemed “captured”. A captured province produces one Economic Point for the enemy (capturing) player (if connected to his grid) and no Economic Points for the originally owning player. Captured provinces cannot be disrupted. If enemy forces captured a province and friendly forces later re-entered it (without ejecting enemy forces), it would be considered a disrupted province producing Economic Points for the original owner (assuming connection to his Supply Grid), not a disrupted captured province."

---

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, April 09, 2014 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Rob, the province in question is still captured (there are no original owner force in that province) and (314.27) does not override (430.22) '...no Economic Points for the originally owning player.'

A 'disrupted captured province' (from the raid) is different than a 'disrupted province' (duel forces)...at least that's how I see it.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 07:56 am: Edit

Stewart,

No. Again a province can only be Disrupted or Captured. There is no such thing as a Disrupted Captured Province.

Maybe the intent of Raids is to work exactly how you say, but it is not clear by the rules. Considering raids take place over the course of an entire turn, it's entirely reasonable to believe the raiding ship was "patrolling" said province looking for things to blow up, meaning there would be a friendly presence in the province.

The bottom line is, the raid rules are very specific saying the Province is Disrupted until the Attackers /b{next} Economic Phase. There is simply no reason to make it last that long other than to get income from the raided Province.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 09:48 am: Edit

The province is still captured at the end of the turn since the original has no forces in the province at the end of the turn. (314.27) says the "invader who captured the province gets no income from it on the next turn."

The raid has disrupted the long term capture (438.1) status and the income for the turn. The province remains captured and by (314.27) produces no income.

A captured province that has been raided does not produce income for the capturing player.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 10:51 am: Edit

Again, I refer to the following:

---

Quote:

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).

---

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 11:03 am: Edit

I did find this ancient ruling from Nick back in 2003:

---

Quote:

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 07:03 pm: Edit

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Question on raids:
The Hydrans successfully raid hex 114 on turn 7 Alliance. They otherwise have no ships in that province. The Lyrans do have ships in the province (but not in hex 114).
On turn 8 Coalition, the Lyrans don't collect money from the province (I believe).

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 04:58 pm: Edit

On turn 8 Alliance, the only ships in that province are Lyran. Do the Hydrans collect money from the disrupted province (since they successfully raided it), or does the Lyran presence on turn 8 Coalition reconvert it to a captured province?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 04:58 pm: Edit

TonyB, this is what I found,
________________________________________
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 (if a supply path is open) that a captured province would actually produce income for the original owner and 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 Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 11:20 am: Edit

Tony Barns, as Scott posted, the rule says that the province is "disrupted" for the defender's next turn, and the attacker's next economic phase. So the Lyrans get nothing on their turn, and if the Hydrans have a valid path to the province they would collect the 1 EP.

---

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 12:01 pm: Edit

The raid ship has not reoccupied the province so (430.23) would not apply.

I think (430.24) is the applicable rule. The capturing player has in essence abandoned the province. If the original owner controls an adjacent province he gains 1ep as a disrupted province on his next turn. If the original owner does not have an adjacent province then no earns any income.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Yeah, but Rob it doesn't change the fact that a raid does not change ownership of the province. You need to own it to get EPs from it.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 05:57 pm: Edit

In essence it does change the ownership, just temporarily. If the province is a captured province and it is disrupted by a raid, it is now a disrupted province and not technically a captured province. The reset of the LTC clock I believe is evidence of this since by the LTC rule resetting the clock requires the presence of a friendly ship.

---

Quote:

(438.2)REMAINING CAPTURED
A province is considered to have remained captured if no. ships of the original owner are in that province at the end of either player-turn. A raid(314.27)that successfully disrupts the province re-starts the four turn clock.

---

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 08:29 pm: Edit

No, it doesn't change ownership. If you raid an enemy's empty province, you wouldn't get those EPs, because the raid doesn't give you ownership.

Your interpretation would make raids always used in friendly territory (i.e., by the Alliance during at least the first half of the game) since the EP swing would be 2 points (Enemy loses an EP and you gain an EP) as opposed to disrupting enemy territory where the impact is only 1 point.

That doesn't really make sense. Raids don't allow you to collect money - the raiders are too busy doing bad things and running away. And you can't be both running away and reestablishing ownership.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Well the difference is when you raid an enemy empty province it would go from full production to disrupted.

A captured friendly province would go from captured status to disrupted status as the raid rules say. Resulting in a very temporary change in ownership.

Personally I agree, getting a two point swing will always be chosen over simply denying your opponent a single EP, but right now the way the raid rules are written (and the way Nick ruled it back in 2003) both support my position. Though a large portion of Nick's have been repealed so I'd not be surprised to see this one reversed too.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Friday, April 11, 2014 - 08:41 am: Edit

Again, I refer to the following:


Quote:
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 doesn't indicate that the attacker gets the EPs because of the raid.

Let's say that Kzintis raid a province that they once owned but is now captured by the Klingons. Raid is successful, and province is disrupted. Later during operational movement and combat, the Kzintis end up recapturing the province that they disrupted.

So, on the next Kzinti turn, assuming the Klingons don't recapture the province, the Kzintis collect only 1 EP instead of 2, because they disrupted the province.

That's all this rule means.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, April 11, 2014 - 08:42 pm: Edit

Where are you guys finding the governing rules -- I'm not saying it's wrong but I'm seeking clarification as to how one can disrupt an original province that later reverts to his control? Where are the enabling rules?

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Friday, April 11, 2014 - 09:00 pm: Edit

(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.

Rob is saying that this rule implies that the raid produces an EP for the original owner since it refers to the attacker's next economic phase.