| By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 04:21 pm: Edit |
Huh. Weird. In the actual 2K10 rulebook (i.e. printed paper :-), under the Lyran fleet/OB listing and production notes (711.2), it clearly states "May substitute CL for CA or CW once per turn". I wonder why the e23 version is different. Mysterious.
| By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 04:36 pm: Edit |
Cut and pasted from my e23 copy...
(711.2) SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION RULES
The Lyrans can substitute the catamaran equivalent for any scheduled trimaran, i.e., CA for DN, CL for BC, DD for CW, or FF for DW. Why they would want to is unclear.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 04:47 pm: Edit |
My copy of the paper rule book has BOTH lines in 711.2
Randy's at the start, Peter's toward the end.
| By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 04:53 pm: Edit |
randy your copy is as mine, the missing exchange of 'CA/CW for CL'.
| By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 04:57 pm: Edit |
Yeah, the note about "catamaran for trimaran sub" is at the start of 711.2 The note about "may sub a CL for a CA or CW once per turn" is about half way down the list of construction notes in 711.2 (right under "CC may be substituted for CA y180+" and right above "DD may be substituted for CW or DW once per turn". One of the great mysteries of the universe is why the Lyrans can build a CW for 5 EPs which is a DD plus another chunk of ship, while a DD also costs 5 EPs, which is a DD without another chunk of ship. It is like they have managed to invent perpetual motion or something…)
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 05:02 pm: Edit |
DDs are built with a longer service time in mind requiring better quality engines and so on. I think. There's some note about that in the R section for certain Lyran x-ships.
| By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 07:32 pm: Edit |
(711.2) SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION RULES
The Lyrans can substitute the catamaran equivalent for any scheduled trimaran, i.e., CA for DN, CL for BC, DD for CW, or FF for DW. Why they would want to is unclear.
STT can be substituted for CA once per year in Y170+.
TGC can be substituted or TGP for CA once per year OR can convert one CA to TGC or TGP once per year but not both.
BCH can be substituted for BC or DN once per year in Y180 and later.
CC can be substituted for CA in Y180 and later.
CL can be substituted for CA or CW once per turn.
DD can be substituted for CW or DW, once per turn.
No more than one scout can be produced by substitution per turn (432.41); conversions are not limited.
Once PFTs are available, can produce one per year by substitution and one by conversion (432.42).
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 07:33 pm: Edit |
One reason is that Lyran X-ships can be converted from catamarans (including any trimarans converted from catamarans) but not from 'new' production trimarans...
| By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 07:41 pm: Edit |
Yeah, see, there is it. "CL can be substituted for CA or CW once per turn." That is presumably from the PDF rulebook?
| By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 08:11 pm: Edit |
Yes
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, September 04, 2014 - 10:15 am: Edit |
Q718.A4 Do the Paravians colonies in the Paravian capital systems have any PDUs at the start of a game involving them? I realize the Paravians are playtest rules.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 12:02 pm: Edit |
Randy stated in Q&A:
Quote:I respectfully submit that this tactic is not fair, particularly to the Coalition who has fewer fighters.
I don't see a problem with this. All the Coalition needs to do is either build more carriers, or not put itself in the situation where it can get whacked by fighters from an adjacent hex.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 12:53 pm: Edit |
Randy stated in Q&A:
Quote:
Quote:
I respectfully submit that this tactic is not fair, particularly to the Coalition who has fewer fighters.
I don't see a problem with this. All the Coalition needs to do is either build more carriers, or not put itself in the situation where it can get whacked by fighters from an adjacent hex.
That helps, but only to a point.
First, the Coalition will always have fewer fighters. There's fewer FFFs to go around, fewer starting fighters, and the Coalition build schedule favors building ships over additional fighters.
Second, the Coalition is on the offense. That means it must occupy *substantially* more space, especially early game. That means the fewer you have carriers are spread father apart. If you concentrate them to defend a particular hex, great - but then they're not at other places to prevent this tactic. This situation applies infrequently to the Alliance, which tends to concentrate at well defended hard points, so their majority of fighters are going to be at most hard point locations. Meaning the Coalition can't practically use this same tactic in the same way the Alliance can.
Third, the Coalition has 3 empires, the Alliance 4 (maybe 5). Meaning that by turn 12 you could be facing 4 or more such "mini-swarms" per turn. The Coalition could mount 3+, but probably not because of my second point above.
Fourth, this tactic is boring and frustrating. Fighting 18 fighters at a time over 20+ combat rounds (maybe more if the Hydrans mass a fighter fleet) with ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBLE RISK to the Alliance is boring and frustrating.
Thus, it is my reasoned opinion that this ruling is bad for the game and it should be reversed.
***
Richard:
This is an extreme case which is unlikely to occur.
I personally would not bother if there wasn't any chance of actually doing damage, and at 18 compot vs 80-100, you would need a very large advantage in fighters to do this.
This can only be done with a fighter strike at no risk if there are no units to react to the fighter strike.
Usually things don't work out that way at all.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 01:09 pm: Edit |
I think it's more frequent than you posit. There are many cases where reaction is not warranted for whatever reason - but reacting is a way to mitigate this occurrence. Anyway, it's easy for the Alliance to have a very large advantage in fighters, particularly when the Alliance controls when and where the fighter strike occurs (as this usually happens on its phasing turn). Theoretically it could also happen on the Coalition turn, when the Alliance reacts fighters into a hex, but that's less likely.
Quote:Richard:
This is an extreme case which is unlikely to occur.
I personally would not bother if there wasn't any chance of actually doing damage, and at 18 compot vs 80-100, you would need a very large advantage in fighters to do this.
This can only be done with a fighter strike at no risk if there are no units to react to the fighter strike.
Usually things don't work out that way at all.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 02:31 pm: Edit |
Where is the enabling rule that allows co-hex carriers to feed fighters to another carrier conducting a fighter strike in another hex? FCR/FSDs can do this under rule (526.31) but I fail to find a rule for collocated carriers not committed to battle.
From what I see it appears that in order to use carrier-based fighter/PFs in an adjacent battle hex that the carrier must have sent their fighters/PFs there prior to battle resolution. It appears that if a carrier unit doesn't commit to an adjacent battle hex then its attrition units cannot be used to support collocated carriers that do.
What am I missing?
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 03:13 pm: Edit |
I can see your point Chuck. Thank you.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 03:27 pm: Edit |
Chuck,
Playing devil's advocate, the only enabling rule I can see is the general rule that allows fighters to be exchanged between battle rounds. Arguably, even if the co-hex carriers did not participate in the fighter strike, they could feed their fighters to the CVs committed to combat between battle rounds, in much the same way that CVs in a regular hex can feed their fighters that stay in combat on the line during a regular combat in a single hex. Why should co-hex CVs be considered "frozen" in terms of feeding fighters while their friendly (possibly allied) carriers are participating in a sortie? Why can't those co-hex carriers continue to feed the bays of the CVs supporting the fighter strike, especially if there is an explicit rule that allows the FCRs and FCDs to do so? It would seem to setup a double-standard that does not make sense: when in normal combat situations CVs on the line can accept FCR or co-hex CVs, why would CVs supporting a fighter strike sortie be limited to only FCRs and FSDs for fighter reserves? Normally, under existing rules, both co-hex CVs and FCRs and FSDs can feed fighters, so it would not make sense to rule that co-hex CVs cannot feed to CVs supporting a sortie when FCRs can already do so.
That being said, your proposed rationale (which amounts to freezing the fighter pool for the mini-swarm to the CVs performing the strike plus any FCRs/FSDs) is a good reason as any to limit the ruling to FCR/FSD, and that would mitigate the mini-swarm potential.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 03:41 pm: Edit |
Chuck, I'm not sure 526.31 really helps you either way. The same rationale you suggested above could also apply to FCRs transferring fighters, as the rule says it can transfer fighters to CVS "in the same hex." But co-hex CVs can already transfer fighters at the end of each combat round, just like FCRs.
Thus, the frozen rationale for preventing other co-hex CVs from supporting the fighter strike, to be consistent, would also have to apply to FCRs and FCDs.
If co-hex carriers can't feed fighters to the CVs supporting a fighter strike, this "same hex" limitation would be a good reason to sustain the appeal and reverse the prior ruling.
If not, then you'll need to come up with a justification for distinguishing between FCRs and co-hex CVs when both can transfer fighters at the end of each round to the "CVs on the line" that are "in the same hex".
In other words, the "in the same hex" rationale in 526.31 could be used in conjunction with the idea that only the CVs doing a fighter strike can provide fighters to a combat to reverse the prior ruling. Alternatively, given that co-hex CVs can already transfer fighters under SoP step 6-E, you will need a reason why co-hex CVs cannot support CVs doing a fighter strike while FCRs can, when FCRs are under the same "same hex" limitation under 526.31.
| By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 03:58 pm: Edit |
Maybe FCRs and FCDs can do it because that's what they're designed for, but other carriers can't.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 04:09 pm: Edit |
Randy, agreed that is the proffered rationale. My contention is that it's a distinction without a difference: comparing FCRs to CVs, as both can freely exchange fighters between combat rounds either per 526.31 or SoP rule 6-E.
Note: if CVs can't send their fighters to other CVs between rounds (as there's no "enabling rule") then I've been playing F&E wrong for a long long time. Once a CV on the line has lost its fighters, it *can't* replace those fighters with fighters from other CVs (unless it's an FCR/FSD). But that contradicts my knowledge of the game with every player I've played against.
| By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 04:16 pm: Edit |
You haven't been exchanging fighters from a CV in one hex with a CV in another hex, are you?
I think this has a lot less to do with the abstraction of fighter operations as manifested in the game and more about the details that the game doesn't bother with.
Fighter factors themselves, as you know, are an unrealistic abstraction when viewed from the SFB side of things.
That being said, I can accept, by fiat, the notion that only FCRs/FCDs can do that, while CVs cannot.
| By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 05:45 pm: Edit |
Can someone give a worked example of this? Im struggling to get my head around it.
Thanks.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 06:03 pm: Edit |
. No. I'm saying in a regular battle CVs not on the line are feeding fighters to CVs of the same empire that are on the line - regular combat, all units in the same hex. (Klingons and Lyrans can share fighters though). FCRs and FSDs can also feed fighters forward in precisely the same manner - there's no real difference.
Quote:You haven't been exchanging fighters from a CV in one hex with a CV in another hex, are you?
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 06:04 pm: Edit |
Jason, please go read my original question on the Q&A thread. It sets up the exact situation that is in question.
Quote:Can someone give a worked example of this? Im struggling to get my head around it.
Thanks.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 06:06 pm: Edit |
As an aside, I thwarted this particular kamikaze attack by the hair of my chinny chin chin (in Typhoon Khaless). The fighter strike was 18 fighters against a fleet of 41 SE that included 18 fighters - but the Zin had 61 more fighters in the adjacent hex to feed forward. Over five combat rounds I destroyed all 79 fighters (18 at a time, with one round of 7 fighters) and ended up at the very end with +2 damage, which I ignored as I put up an all cruiser line.
But had he committed 250 fighters.... I would have taken considerable cripples to retain the hex.
All with absolutely zero risk to the Zin.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |