Ryan, small disconnect here, command points for capital (or any multi-system) assaults are governed by (308.94) and have to be announced (even if the approach is declined) to be effective during the system battles.

If not announced, then it's [assumed?] to be zero (on both sides, especially for joint ops since the flag determines which is used for that system)...

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 - 07:35 am: Edit

In multi-hex battles ALL DEFENDER command point assignments must be announced when the first battle force in the hex is presented by the DEFENDER.

---

Quote:

(308.92) EFFECT: Each point allows the player to use one extra ship in the Battle Force of one Battle Hex for one Player Turn. Their use is announced when the first Battle Force in that Battle Hex is revealed.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 - 08:01 am: Edit

Ref: Capital System Involuntary Minus Points in Pursuit

FEDS does not see how this is rule ambiguous...

---

Quote:

(308.242) The number of “involuntary minus points” that can be carried over to the pursuit battle is limited to six (twelve in a capital battle) but this limit includes the number of voluntary points if there are any.

---

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 - 08:39 am: Edit

>>In multi-hex battles ALL command point assignments are announced when the first battle force in the hex is presented by the defender.>>

Should "defender" in this sentence be "attacker"?

It is clear that the attacker sets up and announces command points first. Then the defender sets up and announces command points (that was established in the ruling Ryan pointed to above). It is possible, however, that the defender does not present a battle force the first (or second or whatever) round of combat. The attacker is *always* going to have a battle force in a round of combat in a multi system fight. The defender is *not* always going to have a battle force.

If the sentence referenced above reads:

"In multi-hex battles ALL command point assignments are announced when the first battle force in the hex is presented by the attacker".

That clears up all ambiguity (i.e. the first time the attacker sets up a force, even if it is not met by the defender, the defender needs to announce the use of command points). As it currently reads, it could be read to mean that the defender does not need to announce command point use till they decide to put up ships (which is the crux of my question).

I'm really not trying to be a hassle here.


FEDS clarified his original ruling above. How else would one know where the specified extra command point is assigned if one is using there command points under (309.941):

---

Quote:

(308.941) If four points are used in a multi-system capital hex, this counts as two points for each approach battle and two points for each battle in all systems. Three Command Points would allow the player to use one Command Point in each system (and the approach battle) and two Command Points in one of those systems. The decision as to which system gets the extra point is made before any combat and cannot be changed during the Player Turn.

---

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 - 08:49 am: Edit

The defender always presents a battle force.

Even a devastated planet with an RDU is a battle force.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 - 09:33 am: Edit

Ah, fair enough.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 - 12:12 pm: Edit

Q521.37:

Where in the SoP are escorts for Troop ships assigned? By the wording of 521.372 it appears they can be assigned "on the fly" well after battle lines are revealed but before any dice rolls are conducted. Also the escorts only need to be crippled to allow the directing of the Troop Ship itself, but how exactly would a squadron of fighters be crippled? Would it be half of the fighter strength? Just killing one fighter factor since at that point it is no longer a whole ship equivalent, or something else?

Reference text for escorting troop ships:

---

Quote:

(521.372) Ground combat ships in a battle force (whether making an assault, or supporting planetary defenders, or even in a hex without a planet) can be (but do not have to be) "escorted" in a manner that is different from "carrier escorts" (308.1). One or two ships (not more) can be assigned to escort each ground combat ship.

---

By Michael Alan Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Repost as still unanswered:

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.

<B><FONT COLOR="119911">Ref: Abandonment of Tug During Assigned Supply Mission

Unless overruled by ADB, tugs assigned to a supply mission (509-D) must be in the Battle Force, or they are judged to have abandoned their supply mission from that same point in the SoP (this may have repercussions during the current combat phase). A tug that abandons this mission CANNOT be used for any other tug mission during the remainder of the current turn; exception: mission-M (standard warship) or if crippled, mission-I (Tug Under Repair).

This ruling is supported by the precedence under (302.233) whereby a tug abandons its assigned mission and reverts to mission "M" under (509-M) immediately upon said abandonment.

See FEDS ruling this topic on November 27, 2014 - 03:20 am.

By Lee Hanna (Lee) on Saturday, November 01, 2014 - 11:36 am: Edit

If one converts a ship from a carrier to an FCR, is there any savings in EPs spent on fighters?

Thus, a Romulan WH (2.5 fighters, 5 EP) to BHF (6 fighters, 6 EP) conversion would have to pay for the fighters all over again?

One could convert a carrier into an FCR but would have to pay for the un-conversion under (433.24) and then pay to convert the base unit into an FCR; since the the carrier fighters are already paid for they can be used in the conversion but any excess fighters not used would be lost. However, this is on a factor to factor basis and not a EP basis. In the case cited with a WH with 2.5 factors of fighters, one must pay for the unconversion to a base hull then pay the FCR conversion PLUS 3.5 EPs to cover the additional fighters factors added to the FCR. (Once carrier fighter factors exist they CANNOT be split back into FCR or hybrid factors.) So whilst one COULD do this type of conversion it would be inefficient and expensive to do so.

FEDS SENDS

Reference:

---

Quote:

(433.24) REVERSE CONVERSIONS: Variants can be converted back into the base hull type by any starbase; this costs one EP and does not produce any EPs (the removed equipment is discarded). Maulers and certain other ships (Romulan SPM) cannot be converted back into a base hull type.

(433.241) Any variant (except a mauler) can be converted into any other variant that the base hull can be converted into. Pay a one-point surcharge to “unconvert” the original variant and then the normal conversion cost for the desired variant. If the original conversion was three points, the extra surcharge point (total cost four) does not make this a major conversion using the one allowed major conversion. The one EP cost is paid per ship, so a Romulan FE group would cost three points to convert into three WEs.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Request for re-hearing on Q509.1-M.

It is respectfully submitted that FEDS ruling is contrary to the black letter of both rules 412.23 and 509.1-M. FEDS ruling is instead supported by the less persuasive analogy to tugs setting up MBs or conducting base upgrades, which are not the same as tugs conducting the supply mission.

412.23 states, in black and white, precisely two conditions under which the supply tug (mission 509.1-D) loses its supply status: 1) it is forced to retreat (flavor text for the notion that it does retreat for whatever reason) or 2) it is destroyed.

509.1-M states, in black and white, that "This mission is the ONLY assignment that can be changed during the turn (caps for emphasis).

Therefore, per 509.1-M the supply tug CANNOT change missions during the turn, period - unless an explicit exception is provided. It can only change missions on the next turn.

The only explicit exceptions are under 412.23. These are: 1) the tug ACTUALLY RETREATS (i.e., forced to retreat) or 2) the tug is DESTROYED (caps for emphasis).

Thus, the only correct interpretation of these two rules requires that the supply tug appear on the battle line, as a supply tug, UNLESS the tug actually retreats. The tug cannot change missions until then, and cannot abandon its role as a supply tug until then.

The ruling should not be based on a reference to a related rule for a different tug mission, but rather on the black and white text of the current rules.

It is respectfully submitted that the ruling is a rules *change* and not a rules interpretation, as the ruling is contrary to the black letter text as shown above.

Change in ruling respectfully requested.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Please consider the following as part of my rehearing/appeal request: the point made that a supply tug is effectively (practically) immune to attack during the combat phase - as the player can keep the tug off the line, and then win or lose on the next phase the tug owner can re-declare the tug to be a supply tug. It's a cheesy way to keep the tug off the line and then have it re-appear as a supply tug - all without the risk that the rules appear to intend.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 01:06 pm: Edit

A motion for reconsideration and re-hearing on the ruling of Abandonment of Tug During Assigned Supply Mission has been granted and the FEDS will stay the implementation of the ruling while it is under review and advisement.

FEDS SENDS

By Ed Meister (Edthefed) on Thursday, November 13, 2014 - 07:39 pm: Edit

I am looking to buy some (probablyou most) of the F&E rulebooks. Looking at the spare parts section for the rulebooks, some of them have an * by them. Does that mean anything? I am also assuming that they would be the most recent editions.

I don't own anything F&E so I haven't really stayed current with it. Thanks!

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Friday, November 14, 2014 - 11:26 am: Edit

Leanna said that meant they had been updated at some point.

She's going to remove the asterisk so it isn't confusing.

By Ed Meister (Edthefed) on Friday, November 14, 2014 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Thanks everyone!

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, November 14, 2014 - 06:53 pm: Edit

Q301.2 An attacking force is jumped by a reserve fleet and finds itself at a disadvantage. Is the attacking force is required to put up a "full" battle line subject to (302.3)? (302.1) Withdrawal before combat seems, by the wording, to apply only to the defender.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, November 14, 2014 - 07:39 pm: Edit

Partially true, the Reserve means the Defender can't withdraw (302.11). In your case, Minimum Force (302.36) might help (depending on how big the attacking force is)...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 16, 2014 - 08:54 am: Edit

Q442.53 Can the ISC build a DD or acceptable variant under (442.53) at a given starbase in Y178+? The ISC treats their DDs as DWs for the purposes of construction and tactics.

Unless overruled by ADB the ISC DD can be built at starbases in Y178+ under (442.53).

---

Quote:

(442.53) DW PRODUCTION: Effective Y178, Starbases gain the ability to produce one DW instead of one FF (431.52) each turn. Commando and escort variants can be produced as substitutions, and one scout variant per turn could be produced as a substitution under the (432.41) limit.

---

By Matthew Smith (Mgsmith67) on Monday, November 17, 2014 - 05:11 pm: Edit

I had asked this question before, but never got an answer.

Q709.2: Can the Hydrans, if they retain the capital, start performing FF->DW conversions on T10, when the DW shows up on the accelerated build schedule?

I think the answer is yes, based on the very similar Q&A response below, but I just wanted to be sure.

---

Quote:

450.16) and (709.2) Can the Hydrans begin production of a DW minor shipyard on T13?

ANSWER: It's going to depend on (709.3) the Capital subheading. Normally the hydran capital is captured and they don't get the DW until Fall Y176 (and could do a minor shipyard at that point), but if the capital is still standing by Y173, they get DWs earlier and could build a DW minor shipyard at that earlier point. The short answer is if the DW is on their schedule they can build the minor shipyard for it.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, November 20, 2014 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Q(308.23). If, on a single battle round, two carriers are killed - one by directed damage and the other by self-applied damage - do involuntary minus points accumulate for the loss of homeless fighters on directed carrier regardless of how many homeless fighters are lost by the loss of the carrier lost to self-applied damage?

Situation: The Kzinti send a huge fleet to a hex containing a smaller Lyran fleet, which also includes a Lyran LAV and a Lyran SAV. Knowing that there is no chance that the Lyrans can hold the hex, and further knowing that the AUXes will almost certainly be killed on slow pursuit, the Lyran player decides to put both of these units on the line in the first combat round.

The Kzinti do 18 damage on round 1 due to poor rolling. The Kzinti player announces that he will use directed damage on the Lyran SAV, killing it for 6 of that 18 damage.

The Lyrans then have 12 damage to take. The Lyran player announces he will resolve that damage by killing the LAV (resolving 6 points) and by killing 6 of the LAV fighters.

There are now 12 homeless fighters, 6 from the LAV and 6 from the SAV. The Kzinti player asserts (more or less) that 308.23 can't be abused by cherry-picking which fighters you lose first. Essentially, the Kzint players appears to believe that the Lyran player has to resolve the damage on the fighters that would lead to involuntary minus points first. As a result, the Kzinti player asserts that there are no minus points after this round on account of 308.23.

However, the Lyran player states that homeless fighters are not resolved until *after* damage allocation. I.e., damage allocation is phase 5, step 6 and thus there are 6 LAV fighters and 6 SAV fighters that are homeless to be resolved at step 5-6X5 (transfer or lose fighters and PFs as a result of any destroyed defense battalions). As an aside, 5-6X5 of the SoP should be updated to mention carriers as well.

The Lyran player then asserts that 308.23 means that the 6 LAV fighters cannot generate minus points because these fighter losses resulted from voluntary loss of the carrier - BUT - that the 6 SAV fighters DO generate 6 involuntary minus points because these fighter losses resulted from the involuntary (directed damage) loss of *that* carrier.

The Kzinti player appears to believe that this reasoning isn't right. The Kzinti player appears to believe that the intent of 308.23 is that a player taking damage cannot cherry pick fighters to be lost as homeless fighters to generate minus points. In other words, the intent of 308.23 is to prevent players from manipulating damage to generate minus points as a result of homeless fighters. Thus, the Kzinti players still believes that 308.23 would mandate that there are no minus points.

Ruling requested, thank you.

FEDS: Asked and answered in a prior ruling in this topic on April 16, 2013.