overbuilds...

on the MSITs is the overbuild cost double the 'Schedule' cost i think it is but i want to be sure.
thanks in advance.

base upgrading....
do you have to pay for figthers or can you upgrade a MB to a BATS or a BATS to a SB without paying for the fighter factors?.

specific base upgrade question.
CT1 upgrade Lyran MB to BATS (at Lyrantan.) use free fighters for Y168 (711.3)
CT2 SY169 upgrade BATS to SB use 6FFF for Y169 and pay for 6 more fighter factors.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, August 11, 2014 - 07:55 am: Edit

overbuilds...

on the MSITs is the overbuild cost double the 'Schedule' cost i think it is but i want to be sure.
thanks in advance.

*YES

base upgrading....
do you have to pay for figthers or can you upgrade a MB to a BATS or a BATS to a SB without paying for the fighter factors?.
*IN F&E2010 YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR FIGHTERS


specific base upgrade question.
CT1 upgrade Lyran MB to BATS (at Lyrantan.) use free fighters for Y168 (711.3)
CT2 SY169 upgrade BATS to SB use 6FFF for Y169 and pay for 6 more fighter factors.
*YOU CANNOT USE FREE FIGHTER FACTORS FOR BASES

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, August 11, 2014 - 08:21 am: Edit

>>That is not correct - you can redevastate the planet without first killing the RDF (20 points of directed damage) which also has the effect of killing the RDF. (508.161). >>

Ok. So a devastated planet:

-Has an RDU that can be voluntarily taken as (3) damage. Or killed by an attacking force for (3) damage done.

-To re-devastate a devastated planet, you need to do 10 damage to it. The attacker can direct this damage, but the defender can't voluntarily take it.

-If an attacking force simply kills the RDU and immediately captures the planet (say, with a single FF and no defending units), the planet is considered re-devastated, as the attacker is assumed to eventually do that 10 points of damage.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, August 11, 2014 - 08:25 am: Edit

An attacking force cannot destroy an RDF with 3 points of damage by choice, it would take 6 to direct on it.

Unless there were no targets other than the planet itself, in which case the whole point is moot.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, August 11, 2014 - 11:19 am: Edit

Well, yes. That. I was envisioning a situation where there was an attacking force and no defenders.

Given that you need to do 10 points of damage to re-devastate a planet, and direct re-devatstaing a planet (for 20 damage/10 with a mauler) kills the RDF anyway, what situation would one want to direct an RDF for 6 points? (Not being snarky, really wanting to see if there is a situation that is a good idea :-)

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 04:09 pm: Edit

Matthew wrote:
>>How much change has there been in the rules for the base game? I purchased the 2010 version at GenCon and I've spoken with someone that has the 1986 Deluxe version. How much change is there and is there a document that bridges the gap between the 2?>>

There has been a lot of change singe the 1986 version.

-The 1986 version is the first version of the game. In that version, there are a lot of vastly different rules and counter values for ships than currently.

-The 1989 version is the first version of the modern rules set.

-There have been 4 or 5 revisions since the 1989 version, all of which are mostly the same (i.e. counters haven't changed really since 1989), but there have been modest rules tweaks.

-The 2K10 version of the rules has a lot of significant rules changes from the previous rules set, although, again, most of the counters are the same (although in the 2K10 version, carrier group counters are removed and replaced by individual ship counters).

The 1986 version of the game is essentially a completely different game than the current one (well, ok, the basic idea is the same, but so much has changed since then that it is best just to pretend it isn't there). The game between 1989 and 2010 has evolved, but is mostly the same game.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 05:38 pm: Edit

The biggest changes between the 1989/92/93/2000 and 2010 version are the elimination of the out of phase CEDS retrogrades, changes to maulers vs the formation bonus and the addition of flexible carrier groups. The biggest change in counters from the earlier editions to the 2010 rules is the triangle or half fighter factor mostly found on Hydran ships, but also on carriers that have odd fighter factors like the crippled side of the Federation CVA which is 7.5 as opposed to the earlier 7.

Each successive version of the rules included things from the Q&A to make them more complete.

The 2010 version includes very extensive cross referencing with existing expansion modules that were released prior to the 2010 rulebook.

The ISC War module has a good half page of cross references to the 2010 and expansion rules that apply only to the ISC without changing the interaction of said rules with other empires.

The best thing to do, unless you are currently in a game with the older rules is to forget them and learn only the new rules.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Deleted by Author. Duplicate Post

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Jim,

Building a Lyran CL in place of a CW costs you one more EP. Yes you can then convert it to a BC in the same turn. (6+5= 11 EPs, vs 10 for a straight BC build). The trade off is that that conversion uses the Lyran major conversion. The one things specifically not allowed is downsubbing the Lyran DN to a CA, then converting it a DN to save the 2 EPs in the cost difference. See (431.83).

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 03:05 pm: Edit

yes but with the lyrans it seems to be all about maximising hulls. i found it odd that the MSIT had the better information rather than 711.2 i would have thought that a small amount of duplication in 711.2 would make it clearer to a newbie like me.
im used to trawling through F&E as over the years ive always been wanting to dip my toes in the water.
this sort of thing keeps me searching for other omissions from the place i'd have thought all build options would be made plain and be in one consolidated place (711.2.).

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 03:13 pm: Edit

When you add the expansions some of the things from the base game are modified. One of those being that the Kzintis can downsub a FF for a DD under (450.4).

Not everything is covered completely by the MSIT. (The 2012 SITs are more inclusive than that included with the Base Game only). Not everything is covered in the Order of Battle either.

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 03:20 pm: Edit

true enough, i downloaded those MSITs too printed them off and laminated them, then found that they are more confusing when using just the 2010 rules so then i printed off the base game ones , no more confusion
although it is confusing having to look in more than one place for the (relatively) same information.
now all i have to do is convince paul building those DD's is a good/wise thing to do ;)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 03:32 pm: Edit

Use the SIT in the 2010 rulebook if you are not using the expansions.

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 03:45 pm: Edit

i am, thats where i discovered the CA/CW substitution for 6 EP's just after i'd been looking at 711.2
i was musing about possible future builds and checking how i could replace the upgraded CL hulls (to continue building more than one CR10 ship per turn (not inc CA to DN.) conversions.) when i came across the MSIT entry.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Hopefully ADB will update the SITs soon.

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 04:59 pm: Edit

i think an expanded and fully inclusive 711.2 (in this case) would be a better option.
really everything you can do production wise should be covered in ONE place. the MSITs are fine as they stand in basic 2010 MSITS should be reference, data files (700) should be fully comprehensive within the ruleset (expanded fully also in various add on supplements like FO/CO/SO/PO/AO)
thats a body of work right there though.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 05:20 pm: Edit

The work has been done.

http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/F&EOrderofBattle.pdf

This is the current version. A updated version is done and awaiting approval.

There generally assume you are using most if not all the expansions. The new one does give rule references were needed.

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Thursday, August 28, 2014 - 02:50 pm: Edit

thanks ryan, thats good to see.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Thursday, August 28, 2014 - 03:00 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

A updated version is done and awaiting approval.

---

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, September 02, 2014 - 08:46 pm: Edit

Jim wrote in Q+A:
>>i've just noticed an anomaly in the MSIT vs 711.2
basic F&E2010
711.2 reads 'the lyrans can substitute the Catamaran equivalent for any scheduled Trimaran, ie 'CL for BC'....' there is other text but this is the relevant bit
but the MSIT ( page 166.) has in the CL line, build cost or substitution ' for CA/CW 6'

so can you basically build a CL in place (substitution.) of a CW? then upgrade ( major conversion.) the CL to a BC?.
seems very gamey to me.
remember, we are playing just basic F&E2010.>>

I'm not quite sure what is gamey about this. The Lyran production notes specifically say "can substitute a CL for a CA/CW once per turn". So if you want to, you can substitute a CL for a CW (costing 6) and then convert it to a BC if you want.

Given that the Lyrans start the game with a metric ton of CLs (18?) and there is nothing at all to do with them but convert them to BCs (as they aren't really worth using in combat if you can avoid it, especially as they are easy to kill and the Lyrans want to convert them to BCs anyway), and there is no good reason to never have a Lyran CL in their capital to convert if they want one to convert, the Lyrans can go a good long time converting CLs to BCs without *ever* having to build a CL (by subbing one for a CA or CW).

Say you convert a CA>DN a few times early in the game, and then convert a CA to a STT at least once a year, the Lyrans can probably go the whole war without needing to sub a CL to convert a BC whenever it comes up. But if they *want* to sub a CL for a CA or CW to convert to a BC, they can. Although it remains to be seen why they would ever do this if given that they can make a CA every turn, which will often be converted to a DN or an STT (instead of the CL>BC conversion).

I mean, yeah, if the Lyrans make that legendary second SB in their Capital, maybe they'll sub a CL for a CW every turn, just to convert to a BC, but then they are paying 6 (CL)+5 (second conversion premium)+6 (conversion cost)=17 points to make a 10 point BC. Which doesn't even take into account the 10+15+36=61 EPs to make the second SB, which doesn't count for VPs and will likely never, ever see combat. Given that, if the Lyrans *really* want to sub a CL for a CW to make into a BC? They should be able to feel good about doing so.

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 08:36 am: Edit

peter it was more a point of that information being in a different place than 711.2
it seemed gamey to me because it looked like an afterthought tagged onto the MSIT rather than being in the Lyran production notes, where it DESERVES (should be.) to be.

i haven't checked the other races out, but im sure anomalies like this abound throughout the system and i hope ryan and others have caught them before this time.

as an aside i AM going to build that second 'legendary' SB knowing full well the money would probably be better spent on something else.
im trying it out in this 1st attempt of F&E of mine to see if it helps with my planned strategy which im obviously not going to reveal until it becomes obvious by what i am doing in the game with paul.
at this point in time (after combat resolution CT2.). i have the BATS by the end of AT2 so CT3 is when the SB gets going (CT4 useable.).

i actually had 6 CL's in a battleforce this round and declined to put any of them in the line up for fear of having one directed (which would have happened with the way the dice are lol.).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 11:00 am: Edit

Jim wrote:
>>it seemed gamey to me because it looked like an afterthought tagged onto the MSIT rather than being in the Lyran production notes, where it DESERVES (should be.) to be. >>

Oh. Ok. Well, the 2K10 rulebook specifically says in the Lyran production notes that they can sub a CL for a CA or CW once per turn. Does your copy not have that?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Jim also wrote:
>>as an aside i AM going to build that second 'legendary' SB knowing full well the money would probably be better spent on something else.>>

Heh. I'm interested to see where it goes. Like, if anyone has the money to do this, it is the Lyrans (although I did build a 4th SB in the Fed Capital in the game I'm currently running, but the Fed Capital does get regularly attacked, and even then. I'm not convinced it was a good idea. I could totally use that extra 51 Eps right about now…), but even then, it is a *lot* of money just so you can be able to spend an extra 5 bucks a turn to do a second major conversion. I mean, yeah, lots and lots of BCs and STTs and DNs will show up, but I've never really noticed the Lyrans lacking in these ships in the first place.

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 02:09 pm: Edit

hmm i have the rules in e23 format and printed off the msit and the 711.2 nothing on the 711.2 thats why i found the difference on the msit.

apparently my copy didnt have that.... and since my comp has issues and i cant get to the rulebook file atm i cant corroborate apart from my print outs.

peter i will do it differently next time i play Lyrans, this is afterall my 1st outing and even at combat CT2 i can see things i should have done in a different manner what a learning curve .

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 02:14 pm: Edit

the plan is to arrive over earth with 16 Lyran dn's in one fleet ;) (chuckling while writing that lil piece of bs ) just seeing if i can sun tzu paul ;)