| By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 06:44 pm: Edit |
Hi Ted, thanks. So the issue is that FCR can resupply to another hex during combat if they have been used to feed fighters forward, but someone wants to resupply from any carrier in the hex which is feeding fighters forward to another hex during combat?
Can FCR be re-supplied by carriers during combat?
If so could you have 3xFCR feeding 18 fighters forward while the other carriers in the hex re-supply the FCR?
Then you can continuously burn through 18 fighters at a time?
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 06:53 pm: Edit |
Jason: FCRs cannot accept fighters in that way.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 06:59 pm: Edit |
Jason, what Richard said.
But, yes. That's why I called it a mini-swarm. Here. Fight 300 Alliance fighters, 18 at a time.
You initiate a fighter strike from an alliance fleet - that's where the friendly CVs stop in hex A and send 18 fighters as a fighter strike to hex B, which has enemy units.
It's already been ruled that other FCRs in hex A (and FSDs anywhere within 6) can continue to feed fighters in groups of 18 to the battle in hex B via the CVs that did the original fighters trike. The bone of contention is that CVs in hex A, *OTHER* than the ones that did the fighter strike, can also feed their fighters to the CVs that did the fighter strike. The effect is a continuous stream of 18 fighters in hex B until you burn out all the fighters in hex A.
I say boo and appealed the ruling and one possible way of interpreting the ruling itself. Let's see what FEDS or SVC think.
| By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 06:59 pm: Edit |
So the way the rule is written you could send 18 fighters forward, then resupply only from however many FCR you had?
Once those FCR had run out of fighters combat will end?
But the more general interpretation is that since FCR can do it, so can other carriers, meaning combat only ends when all the carriers and FCR run out of fighters?
Edit: actually the rule is even more specific. The FCR need to be feeding fighters forward when they are at a base. And those fighters need to have started from the same base.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 08:33 pm: Edit |
(526.315) An FCR located with a base could replace fighters lost from an Independent Fighter Squadron sent from that base.
This is a "black letter" rule.
Quote:
There is no enabling rule that permits a co-hex, uncommitted carrier unit (A) with fighters/PF to support operations of another carrier unit (B) sending its attrition units out-of-hex as an independent squadron/flotilla.
This quite frankly is to prevent abuse. A carrier unit must commit its units to fight in one hex or another (not both). If one wants to use active attrition factors as part of an independent force then one must commit those forces during the movement phase.
Example:
The Klingons are think about attack the Hydran capital. They send a probing force led by D7C with 9xE4 into a hex adjacent to the capital in order to provoke a response. The Hydrans react with a pinning force that includes 12 fighters from their SB in the capital but leave the balance to their force to protect the capital which included 70+ fighters. The Klingon then for whatever strategic reason choose not to press the attack for now. The Klingon then chooses to resolve the battle hex.
Q1: Can FCRs (and FSDs) send fighters to the SB to replenish losses of the SB fighters? YES - This is a designated capability of FCR/FSDs - see (526.315) above.
Q2: Can the Hydrans use the 70+ fighters in the capital to the support SB to send these additional forces forward? NO - There is no such enabling rule.
Allowing such to happen is in essence a default post-movement phase reaction capability for uncommitted fighter factors. The Hydrans held back their carriers and fighters in the capital thinking they would be needed to defend the capital but no such attack occurred. The Hydrans do not now get to use those 70+ uncommitted fighters to support the SB 12 fighter factor in the adjacent hex.
F&E is an abstraction of many things. Actual movement, combat, retreats, resupply, retrogrades are actually happening at different times by both sides during the six month turn; field events don't actual happen according to the SoP. The game rules and SoP are an abstraction of field intelligence, tactical deception, unit commander actions, fog of war, etc. So the best way I can describe this whole thing is that fighter/PF transfers in a battle hex is a tactical action where FCR/FSD transfers are operational action. While they may look the same in their effects they are not in actual game terms.
Unless overruled by ADB, only FCRs and FSDs may replace fighters lost from an Independent Fighter Squadron sent from that base/carrier under (526.315).
FEDS SENDS
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 08:37 pm: Edit |
Chuck, in regards to Ted Fey's question/appeal I believe the following rules might come into play here. (319.0) meeting all requirements for said fighter group to move into a qualified battle hex, and (445.21) provided that said carrier is not supporting a raid under (445.22), or (526.3) with in the requirements of said rule and subrules.
Also annihilation (302.62) could be a factor here.
Note the information above is provided as a friend of the court and does not suggest a ruling one way or the other as it is based on what I believe to be missing rules for consideration.
In my opinion, should a battle round result in annihilation of forces in the physical battle hex then the battle hex is resolved and a FCR or FSD cannot provide fighters to a carrier that was conducting a offensive carrier strike into said battle hex.
| By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 09:15 pm: Edit |
I have to admit that I am nowhere near as experienced as most of you, but when I read that rule (526.315) it seems pretty explicit to me.
I would assume that had SVC wanted other units to be able to resupply combat happening in other hexes then he would have specifically mentioned them. Or not been so specific to mention FCR operating from a base.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 09:57 pm: Edit |
Turtle: 5-6E: Conduct ship transfers of fighters (501.6) and PFs (502.45). (302.63) Annihilation: If all units in the battle hex belonging to one player (all but one player in multi-player battles) are destroyed, the surviving player has the option to retreat. If he elects this option, proceed to Step 7. If not, the Battle Hex is resolved; proceed to the next Battle Hex.
The battle hex is not resolved since FCR factors where resupplied to the supporting base which sent those fighters to replace those lost during battle under SoP 5-6E BEFORE the end of a given combat round:
Quote:
Follow the logic here...
An FCR is collocated with a SB that sent 12 fighters forward as two independent squadrons to an adjacent battle hex. The battle hex has an E4 and the two independent squadrons facing an enemy force.
If the following different scenarios occurs can the FCR support the SB who then sends those forces replace fighter loses in the battle hex:
S1. The E4 and 12 fighters remain in the hex and are engaged; six fighters are lost in the subsequent battle.
A1. The FCR under (526.315) resupplies the SB which sent six replacements to the front leaving an E4 and six fighters at the end of the combat round.
S2. The E4 and 6 fighters remain in the hex and are engaged; six fighters are lost in the subsequent battle.
A2. The FCR under (526.315) resupplies the SB which sent six replacements to the front leaving an E4 and six fighters at the end of the combat round.
S3. Only 12 fighters remain in the hex and are engaged; six fighters are lost in the subsequent battle.
A3. The FCR under (526.315) resupplies the SB which sent six replacements to the front leaving only six fighters at the end of the combat round.
S4. Only six fighters remain in the hex and are engaged; FIVE fighters are lost in the subsequent battle.
A4. The FCR under (526.315) resupplies the SB which sent six replacements to the front leaving only SEVEN fighters at the end of the combat round.
IMPORTANT
S5. Only six fighters remain in the hex and are engaged; SIX fighters are lost in the subsequent battle.
A5. The FCR under (526.315) resupplies the SB which sent six replacements to the front leaving only six fighters at the end of the combat round.
S6. Only ONE fighter remains in the hex and are engaged; the ONE fighter is lost in the subsequent battle.
A6. The FCR under (526.315) resupplies the SB which sent six replacements to the front leaving only six fighters at the end of the combat round.
(FEDS Note: This is a VERY extraordinary scenario but illustrates how the FCR rule works.)
Note that annihilation is determined at the END of the combat round (and after fighter transfers) before the retreat determination:
Quote:
FEDS SENDS
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 10:03 pm: Edit |
Ahhh. I missed the fighter transfers before annihilation.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - 11:02 am: Edit |
Chuck, thank you for the quick appeal decision.
| By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 08:24 am: Edit |
Ted, I cannot help but notice that there is nothing that stops a player from simply just launching every fighter factor available on a massive fighter strike to accomplish this exact same result.
The only downside I can see to it is that those carriers could not then be part of a reserve or Strat move.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 11:16 am: Edit |
As far as I understand, a carrier doing a fighter strike is not moving, and so would still be eligible for reserve status or strategic movement if it had been prior to that point.
If there is a rule or ruling otherwise, please post it.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 12:54 pm: Edit |
I suppose you're right. But at least that downside is there - as the striking carriers will have been considered to have moved. At least you paid a price to be able to conduct your fighter strike.
Quote:Ted, I cannot help but notice that there is nothing that stops a player from simply just launching every fighter factor available on a massive fighter strike to accomplish this exact same result.
The only downside I can see to it is that those carriers could not then be part of a reserve or Strat move.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 02:43 pm: Edit |
That doesn't say it is considered movement.
I think it might be like an HDW changing modules, it gives up 3 points of movement capability, but doesn't actually move.
507.21 Says the restriction is that the unit cannot have moved by operational or retrograde movement and cannot have retreated (this last implies being a battle veteran does not in itself disallow designation as a reserve).
If a unit does not leave it's hex then it hasn't moved. If there's a rule or ruling explicitly saying otherwise, please post it.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 04:09 pm: Edit |
I disagree. The rule says that the last pulse of operational movement is the fighter strike. That must require operational movement. The rules also say that you can conduct operational movement and not actually move from the hex in order to provoke a reaction from the enemy - and that is operational movement. 204.21 states that the ships must not have moved by any other means during the turn, and 319.21 states that the last pulse of the operational movement is to perform the strike. Thus, the carrier *did* move by some other means, even if it did not leave the hex.
Note 204.21 does not say you cannot have left the hex, it says you must not have moved by any other means and 319.21 clearly qualifies by other means.
To me, this is black and white on the page. But if you insist, feel free to follow up with an official Q&A.
EDIT:
507.21 is even more clear. It says the eligible ship must not have moved by operational movement. 319.21 clearly states that the fighter strike is the last pulse of operational movement. Therefore, a CV that performs a fighter strike cannot be in a reserve, even if it did not move out of the hex. Q.E.D.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 04:15 pm: Edit |
Thinking more on this issue, I believe this statement is the heart of the disagreement. I believe this statement is incorrect. See 203.64, for example. See also 205.16 which explicitly provides an example where a fleet marches in place and did not move from the hex, and yet reaction is allowed. The fleet is considered to have "moved" even if it does not leave the hex.
Quote:If a unit does not leave it's hex then it hasn't moved.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 04:52 pm: Edit |
That march in place thing is an explicit exception imo, it would not be needed if you could move without leaving your hex.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 06:18 pm: Edit |
The march in place thing is just an example that you can move within a hex without leaving the hex, thereby provoking reaction. I don't see that as an exception so much as a natural extension of what happens if you wanted to "move in place" - i.e., flying circles in the same 10,000 parsec hex.
The 507.21 example is straightforward logic: A=C, B=C, therefore A=C (319.21 says fighter strike = operational movement; 507.21 says operational movement = no reserve; therefore fighter strike = no reserve).
However, if you still disagree, again I recommend an official question. Though I don't think it matters for our particular game at this point in time.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 07:09 pm: Edit |
Unless overruled by ADB it is ruled that carriers and PF tenders that supported an OFFENSIVE FIGHTER-PF STRIKE under (319.0) are deemed to have used their last pulse of movement and are ruled to have "moved" during the operational movement phase even if they do not themselves leave the strike launch hex and as a result cannot be designated as part of a reserve fleet under (507.0) later in the same player turn. This ruling is further supported under (507.2) where "a force" includes its attrition units assigned to a carrier or tender whether or not said attrition units survive the offensive strike. (507.2) REQUIREMENTS: A force designated as a Reserve cannot have moved by Operational or Retrograde Movement...
Supporting References:
Quote:
(319.21) Offensive strikes are conducted by the Phasing player as the last pulse of the carrier/tender's Operational Movement, so a normal carrier launching such a strike would have to give up its own sixth pulse of movement.
(319.23) A carrier which conducted such a strike could retrograde as would any other carrier that used its fighters in combat.
FEDS SENDS
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 08:26 pm: Edit |
Does this also mean units that can give up movement points to do a modular conversion also fall under this?
| By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 09:07 pm: Edit |
I would guess so.
I don't have the rules in front of me - can a HDW do conversions using the usual method at a starbase? If so, then the movement point conversions would count as movement, IMO.
Think of it this way. If you're not moving, you're eligible for strategic movement because that's what you were doing throughout the turn. If you were converting during movement, that was using up your time, so you're not eligible for strategic movement.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 10:17 pm: Edit |
Unless overruled by ADB it is ruled that if any unit that gives up operational movement points in order to receive a modular conversion then said unit is deemed to have "moved" even if it does not leave the modular conversion hex. As a result, said unit cannot be designated as part of a reserve fleet under (507.0) later in the same player turn.
FEDS SENDS
| By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, September 24, 2014 - 08:12 pm: Edit |
From Q+A:
>>can anyone tell me why ( the reasoning behind this cost.) the Lyran FF to DW conversion cost is so expensive? (the same economic cost as a D6 to D6D conversion). >>
To convince you not to make those conversions.
The Lyrans want FFs to act as pinning mass and to get killed as cheap ships that are holding provinces. They don't really want more DWs than they already have and build normally, as they aren't something that needs to see much combat (in basic games without battlegroups) in main lines, and you don't need a ton for the fights that they are worth using in (i.e. weird back line fights). They build plenty of them for 4EP each. They shouldn't ever want to convert them.
Turning existing DDs into CWs is often a good plan, even at 3EPs, as Lyran CWs see a lot of action. But the FF>DW conversion is one that the Lyrans should likely never, ever do in the basic game.
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, September 24, 2014 - 08:39 pm: Edit |
Peter, personally I'd rather have the DWs than FFs (at least until the NCAs show up).
Holding a province with a DW (or a pair) does force the opposition to use heavier units to destroy it plus allows (surviving) FFs to hold provinces further behind the lines (outside of raids)...
| By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, September 24, 2014 - 11:47 pm: Edit |
I've always felt the FF to DW was a reasonable cost. You're splitting the ship in half and adding an entire 3rd section, virtually on par with the DD to CW conversion. The Lyrans were basically set up to do these conversions cheaply -- splitting up a Kzinti ship to make a DW would be prohibitively expensive by comparison, but the Lyrans had a design that could be more easily added on to.
But what I disagree with is that the Hydrans get the same upgrade cost with their FF to DW. And the Klingons I think can do a E4 to E6 for the same rate. And I think the Tholians can do the same. Seriously, some of these upgrades require completely breaking the hull apart and rebuilding it. It should cost much more than the Lyran FF to DW; in fact some of them I question whether they should be allowed at all.
Now of course, one could argue this a reason to reduce the cost of the Lyran FF to DW, and I'd be ok with that. As long as the other FF to DW upgrades are not similarly reduced. Some ships are just easier to convert, and some should nearly be impossible.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |