The answer is both A and B will reset the clock IF...

A) Yes, but only if you CAPTURE the planet

B) Yes, this resets the clock WITHOUT capturing the planet.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, August 11, 2014 - 12:36 am: Edit

Edit: Wrong topic.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, August 14, 2014 - 10:49 am: Edit

Question deleted by author: Answer found in another rule.

By Bill Steele (Bill83501) on Thursday, August 14, 2014 - 02:04 pm: Edit

If a FCR is homeless and adopted, does it cost the carrier rate? It is not a true CV, but the production lines would be equal.

By Mathew Tate (Tatertot18) on Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 03:59 pm: Edit

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?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 04:05 pm: Edit

(Moved to Q+A discussion--this forum is only for specific rules questions).

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 11:51 am: Edit

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.

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 10:23 pm: Edit

Never mind.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, September 02, 2014 - 08:47 pm: Edit

(Moved Lyran CL sub discussion to Q+A discussions)

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 11:32 am: Edit

Q6-E (SoP): Appeal and/or request for narrow interpretation. Can supporting carriers in a different hex re-supply lost fighters in a battle hex in which the only friendly units are independent fighter squads that were part of a fighter strike?

Situation: The Kzinti player moves a large fleet to 1504 during operational movement of Alliance turn and uses 3*CVS to perform a valid fighter strike of 18 independent fighter factors to hit Coalition units in hex 1505. This Kzinti fleet has about 75 fighters, of which 18 are now in the hex with Coalition ships.

During the subsequent combat phase, on round 1 the Coalition player destroys 17 fighters (but it could have been all 18) with the fleet there. The Alliance player then says he's going to resupply those 17 dead fighters at step 6-E from the carriers in hex 1504 (recall that the actual battle is in hex 1505).

The Coalition player objects on the assertion that a prior ruling (posted below) only allows fighters from FCRs and FSDs to re-fill those lost fighters. The Alliance player reasons that the ruling (posted below) applies precisely to this situation.

To be honest, I think the Alliance player has the better of the argument based on the wording of the ruling. The ruling (below) allows FCRs and FCDs to refill the carriers supporting the fighter strike. Step 6-E allows fighters to be transferred in a fleet, so I see no reason why other carriers in the supporting CV's hex cannot transfer their fighters to the CVs supporting the fighter strike.

In view of this effect, I now appeal this prior ruling by FEDS for the following reasons. Alternatively, I argue for the narrow interpretation of the ruling.

The effect of this ruling, especially if interpreted broadly, allows either player to create a "mini-swarm" starting with a fighter strike of a mere 18 fighters. But you don't have to fight through 18 fighters, you have to fight through all the fighters in the supporting fleet's hex - 18 at a time. The Alliance could do this four or more times a turn (at least one for each major empire).

I respectfully submit that this tactic is not fair, particularly to the Coalition who has fewer fighters. While only 18 fighters can fight at a time, an Alliance fleet could quite reasonably mount *several hundred* supporting fighters for such an extended fighter strike.

So, what you end up with is a game where there is potentially 20+ combat rounds of grind against 18 IFF at a time, where one side loses *nothing* but replaceable fighters, and the other side is likely to take economic damage (unless they also have a large number of fighters - roughly about 1/3 to 1/4 of the fighters brought by the Alliance player). Of course, the opposing player could retreat - but that result could be disastrous if defending a fixed position or an FRD park, so the Coalition player will have no real choice but to fight out the grind and take the lumps.

IMHO this result is not only unfair, it's both boring and frustrating. Once per turn the Coalition player (or Alliance player, as the Coalition can do this too, but to much lesser extent given greater Alliance fighter numbers) will have to grind through several hundred fighters - 18 at a time - where the only possible result is economic damage to one side only. I believe that this result is potentially an unintended consequence of FEDS ruling.

In my personal opinion, I believe this result is both unfair and bad for the game. This result gives the Alliance a huge advantage: the ability to use most of its fighters every turn to cause real damage with absolutely no risk whatsoever.

Therefore, I respectfully appeal the ruling reproduced below. Alternatively, I respectfully request that it be interpreted narrowly to prevent this mini-swarm tactic.

Thank you.

---

Quote:

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.


If a traditional FCR can provide this resupply fighter support to a co-located unit supporting an independent fighter squadron then a FSD may provide the same effect under (526.315) even if not co-located. This would be considered a specified capability of FSDs.

Annihilation under (302.55) is the general rule and the intent of this rule is to identify cases where one or both players have exhausted all means to conduct combat operations in a battle hex. No where under (302.55) does it identify that all units must all be from the battle hex itself.


Quote:
(302.55) ANNIHILATION: If all units belonging to one or both players are destroyed, the Battle Hex has been resolved. Otherwise proceed to Step 6.


Unless overruled by ADB, it is ruled that Annihilation under (302.55) does not apply whilst one of more players have the ability to use co-located FCRs or properly supplied FSD acting as FCRs to a base or carrier supporting an Independent Fighter Squadron to an adjacent battle hex.

FEDS SENDS

---

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 11:55 am: Edit

I respectfully submit that this tactic is not fair, particularly to the Coalition who has fewer fighters.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 01:04 pm: Edit

Q302.632: Do plus points accumulate between rounds against a "mini-swarm" player when the 18 fighters are wiped out with more than 18 damage? See above question on the mini-swarm: an 18 IFF fighter strike backed up with many support fighters in an adjacent hex.

While Rule 302.632 only refers to units "in the hex" for accumulating plus points, it's my position you can't have your cake and eat it too. If the battle hex isn't resolved, there has to be something left to hit - and that would be the next incoming wave of fighters. In other words, the incoming wave of next fighters should be considered "in the battle hex" and accordingly, the plus points should accumulate.

Ruling requested thank you. Note ruling is moot if the mini-swarm appeal overturns the prior ruling.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 08:37 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

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

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 07:08 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.

Supporting References:

---

Quote:

(507.2) REQUIREMENTS: A force designated as a Reserve cannot have moved by Operational or Retrograde Movement...

(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.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 10:16 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 Sunday, October 05, 2014 - 09:27 pm: Edit

In the F+E basic 2000 rules (and all previous rules sets), in section (700.0) Annex (701), it states:

"Can always substitute a CA or CC for DN; CA for CC."

In the F+E basic 2010 rules set, this line is no longer present. And most empires do not have a specific substitution note allowing them to substitute a CC/CA for a DN (the Feds have this note, the Romulans have this note, the Lyrans have a generic notation allowing them to substitute a catamaran ship for any trimaran ship).

Is this an intentional rules change or an accidental omission?

Unless overruled by ADB this was an accidental omission from section (700.0) of F&E2KX. It should have included the following phrase and applied to all empires:

"Can always substitute a CA or CC for DN; CA for CC."

FEDS SEND

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, October 06, 2014 - 08:41 am: Edit

Q528.431:

---

Quote:

If not destroyed or forced to retreat, the attacked ship returns to the battle line and participates in regular combat. Being forced to retreat takes the ship out of the battle force, but not out of the hex; it could be used in the Battle Force for a future round.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, October 18, 2014 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Q509.1-M in view of rule 509.1-D and 412.23. Can a tug validly assigned to the supply tug role (509.1-D) on the phasing turn later be converted *at the beginning of combat* of the non-phasing turn to the "regular warship" role (509.1-M)?

Situation: On the Alliance phase of turn #11 the Federation designates a Federation tug to act as a supply point under rule 509.1-D in hex 1704, co-located with the Kzinti starbase that is still there. On Coalition turn #12 the Klingons and Lyrans send a large force to assault this starbase, and consequently also the supply tug. Approach is offered as required. After approach is declined, the Alliance player asserts that he is converting the tug from mission D (supply tug) to mission M (regular warship). The Coalition player objects, stating that 509.1-M says that " This is the only assignment that can be changed during the turn." By negative inference, it is not possible for the tug to change missions until Alliance turn #12. Further, the Coalition player says that the tug cannot move per 412.22.

However, the Coalition player says that this conclusion cannot be the case, because an exception is provided in that "(412.23) COMBAT: If the tug is attacked, see (302.21). If the tug is forced to retreat or is destroyed, it immediately loses its status as a supply point." Thus, the Alliance player reasons, the tug can change missions. The Alliance player further reasons that the rules say the tug cannot move at all, but then says it can be (forced) to retreat. Retreat is never forced, so there's some confusion as to what is possible. The Alliance player believes the intent of the rules is that you can move but then abandon the supply status. If other words, you can abandon the tug being a supply point at whatever point. The Coalition player points out that the "forced" is simply flavor text indicating a decision to retreat in the face of overwhelming force, and that all other indicators in the text show that the mission cannot change at any time the Alliance player wants, and that 412.23 provides only a very limited exception to the general rule - i.e., the *only* time a supply tug can abandon its mission on the non-phasing turn is if the owning player decides to retreat in the face of combat.

The Alliance player also believes that, from a perspective of real space, the tug simply is able to pick up and leave. In SFB the tug can drop its pods and leave. Thus, the tug should be able to abandon its mission during combat. The Coalition player asserts that the games are different, and while the argument is reasonable, F&E is an abstraction and other reasons may prevent the tug from physically dropping the pods and abandoning its mission. Furthermore, the rules of F&E seem to indicate clearly that the tug cannot move and cannot change missions (509.1-M and 412.22), so it is not reasonable to believe that the tug is able to abandon missions when it pleases *under the rules* - regardless of the reasonability of the physics of the argument.

Ruling is requested, thank you.

By Michael Alan Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 04:35 am: Edit

Ruling on Ted's question is again requested, thank you.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, October 27, 2014 - 08:40 am: Edit

1) When do the use of command points by the defenders in a Capital Assault need to be announced?

-A: When the first battle force is set up in the Capital, even if the defenders do not send ships to that fight?

or

-B: The first time that the defenders set up a battle line in the Capital, which might not be the first battle round in the Capital?

It is perfectly possible for the attackers to offer an approach, it is declined, then the attackers spend multiple rounds attacking already devastated planets in the Capital that the defenders do not send ships to defend, and then only set up their first battle line after the attackers have re-devastated all those planets with no resistance, and then finally move on to an undevastated planet that the defenders wish to send ships to.

2) In a Capital hex pursuit fight, is the limit of "no more than -3 points carry over per system" (which is written in the rules in a sentence specifically referring to voluntary minus points) something that pertains to involuntary minus points?

For example: In a given turn, an Attacker is left at -10 involuntary points (from dead PDU fighters) in System A and -12 involuntary points (from dead PDU fighters) in System B. The attacker then retreats and the defender pursues. Does the defender get to benefit from -12 points (the maximum allowed from involuntary points) or -6 points (the maximum allowed if -3 per system applies to involuntary points)?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, October 27, 2014 - 06:26 pm: Edit

PB:

Have these QUESTIONS not been asked and answered already?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, October 27, 2014 - 06:30 pm: Edit

It is certainly POSSIBLE that they have. But the search system is not as intuitive and handy as one would imagine. If you have a handy reference to point to, I'd certainly appreciate it.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, October 27, 2014 - 06:52 pm: Edit

For the sake of clarity, there were certainly questions asked about when command points were allocated in general in regards to a capital fight (fairly recently). But there was no actual answer I could find to the specific question I'm asking (i.e. if you have to allocate defending command points when the attacker commits a force or only when the defender commits a force, which might be many rounds after the attacker commits a force).

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, October 27, 2014 - 07:31 pm: Edit

PB

Question 1 was answered in CL49 QA. Which is posted here http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/197.html?1407181012

Ryan

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, October 27, 2014 - 08:08 pm: Edit

Thank you for the pointer to that answer, but I don't know that it actually answers the question at hand (assuming this is the answer you are pointing to):

"Q: According to rule (511.5), during a capital assault the attacker is required to reveal his battle force prior to the defender in Step 5. The defender then makes his/her battle force in Steps 6 and 7. Is the attacker required to identify all aspects of his/her battle force (command point use, MMG mission, rescue tug assignment, drone bombardment, etc.) or only the ships and units that will be present in the battle force?
A: The full battle force must be revealed, including all of those questions. This is part of the “home field” advantage of defending a capital. How certain ships such as commando ships or maulers are used later is up to the attacker and not revealed."

That indicates that the attacker needs to set up a force (including command points) before the defender sees it. But if the defender does not set up a battle force at this time, it remains to be seen if the defender can wait to spend command points until they decided to set up a force or not.