Jimi, you need to change your username to your full name per board rules.

By Jimi LaForm (Jlaform) on Sunday, June 08, 2014 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Test and done.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, June 08, 2014 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Thank you, Sir!

By Jimi LaForm (Jlaform) on Sunday, June 08, 2014 - 02:10 pm: Edit

You're welcome, any thought on the above question Mike?

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, June 08, 2014 - 04:02 pm: Edit

Will look at it during a lull this week.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, June 08, 2014 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Q617.B1 Do the planets with 1 PDU have a heavy fighter squadron on them? These planets were liberated before the start of the scenario but after the deployment of Heavy Fighters under (530.212). Thomas Mathews 8 Jun 2014

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, June 08, 2014 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Q617.B1 Do the bases outside of the capital hex have heavy fighter squadrons on them? The bases were established after the deployment of heavy fighters under (530.212)

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, June 09, 2014 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Q511.573: This rule allows you to attack crippled ships at a capital planet at 2:1, even if not part of the battle force. Can you attack carrier groups as a whole with one or more crippled ships *and* one or more uncrippled ships?

Example: The Federation player has a carrier group consisting of uncrippled CVB, crippled NEC, and crippled FF (ad hoc) sitting at Earth, but not on the line. The Klingons assault Earth and do enough damage to direct kill this carrier group. The Klingon player announces he is using 511.573 to direct kill the entire CVB group. The Federation player says the CVB itself is not crippled and thus the *group* is not eligible for 511.573, though the Federation player concedes that the ad hoc FF, as an outer escort and crippled, would be eligible for killing under 511.573.

Who is correct?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 - 06:31 pm: Edit

Q531.44 Can Police carriers (for example, 2 Fed POV working together) perform a fighter strike into a neutral zone hex?

Although POLs cannot leave friendly territory, fighters are not POLs.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 11, 2014 - 08:42 am: Edit

Q617.53 If the Vudar take over a base with a PF module attached does the base in question have Vudar PFs at that time? The Vudar have completed PF deployment under (717.4).

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, June 12, 2014 - 08:27 am: Edit

Q446.51 Could a colony base be given a PF module under (502.62)? Colony bases act like a colony and like a mobile base. (446.51) states that the colony base can have up to two fighter modules and one PF module.

Note: bold used for emphasis.

By Mike Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, June 12, 2014 - 10:52 am: Edit

Can anyone tell me the rule number for the max number of survey ships that can be build for surveying

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, June 12, 2014 - 10:59 am: Edit

MHO (542.26) is what you are looking for.

By Mike Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, June 12, 2014 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Thank Thomas yeap it is

By Jimi LaForm (Jlaform) on Saturday, June 14, 2014 - 01:06 am: Edit

Can a Lyran build a NSR+2KSP and does it generate 6EW? NSR = 2EW, and KSP = 2EW apiece, so working in tandem does that come out to 6EW?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, June 14, 2014 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Jimi, according to the current Lyran SIT the max EW including scout pods of any type is 4 EW.

By Jimi LaForm (Jlaform) on Saturday, June 14, 2014 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Yea, that's how we've always played, but where in the rules does it actually say that 4EW is the max?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, June 14, 2014 - 07:01 pm: Edit

In the Notes column on the SIT Entry. Available power is the reasoning if I remember correctly.

By Jimi LaForm (Jlaform) on Saturday, June 14, 2014 - 07:11 pm: Edit

Yea, the notes column does say that the NSR generates 2 EW, but then it says it can use 2KSP and the KSP in the SIT says that each generates 2EW.

I agree with the max 4EW assumption, just looking for something in print to show it to my opponent, neither of us likes "assumption answers".

By Jimi LaForm (Jlaform) on Tuesday, June 17, 2014 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Klingon D6G is attacking a base, attacker also has an extra PT in the hex.

Can they have the second G, and the PT both supporting the first G for a +2 to the first G's marine assault? That could conceivably go up t a +4 if the VBIR was +2, is that the intent?

By Michael Alan Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Saturday, June 21, 2014 - 01:58 am: Edit

poking this topic as no response from FEAR in almost 2 weeks, I hope his coma after the Con is over soon :-)

By Andrew Bruno (Admeeril) on Saturday, June 21, 2014 - 03:14 am: Edit

Oh no. FEAR coma....

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Saturday, June 21, 2014 - 02:26 pm: Edit

FEAR has been busy processing Q&A for the next CL...

Also, poking FEAR is like poking a Grizzly, be careful what you ask for...

By Michael Alan Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Saturday, June 21, 2014 - 09:14 pm: Edit

Wokka wokka wokka! I got a million of 'em.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, June 22, 2014 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Q(302.55) and (445.21). Can a player use a fighter storage depot to transfer fighters to a hex where all remaining units on one side have been annihilated?

Situation: During operational movement on turn A9, the Kzinti send a fighter strike of 18 independent fighter factors from hex 1401 to attack a group of 3 E4s in hex 1402. During the reserve movement stage the Klingon player sends a powerful reserve, including a carrier, to this battle hex. On combat round 1, the Klingon fleet scores 25 damage; the Kzinti fighters score 4 damage. The Klingons take 4 fighters (of which there are 5) and the Kzinti 18 fighter factors are annihilated, with 7 damage still remaining. The Kzinti player then attempts to use 443.21 and his two currently unused fighter storage depots in range of hex 1402 to send 12 more fighters to hex 1402; presumably to attempt to force a Klingon ship to be crippled for no economic damage to the Kzinti.

The Klingon player objects, citing rule 302.55 for the proposition that the battle hex is resolved, and thus no longer subject to receiving aid from the fighter storage depots under 445.21. The Kzinti player counters that the "carriers" of the strike force in 1401, while not in the hex, are still in a way participating in the battle, so the combat hex is not resolved. The Klingon player argues that the carriers are still not in the hex, and that 302.55 clearly resolves the issue.

In addition, not argued yet, is the possibility that the sequence of play does not completely play out until post damage resolution, so there is still some opportunity to send fighters from the fighter storage depots. However, the Klingon player would point out that the specific overrides the general, and that the annihilation rule provides that the battle hex is resolved upon annihilation, and thus the fighters may not be sent from the fighter storage depots.

Ruling respectfully requested, thank you.

The relevant rule here is:

---

Quote:

(526.315) An FCR located with a base could replace fighters lost from an Independent Fighter Squadron sent from that base.

---