I would think you could substitute the CC, because the CC is smaller than the CV. The CV for BC build option is a special case, while the downgrade option is a standard rule, allowing a smaller hull - and the CC is still smaller than the CV.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, July 05, 2015 - 11:38 pm: Edit

Sorry Kevin, it's the stardard hull, which is the BC (515.525)...

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Monday, July 06, 2015 - 01:51 am: Edit

It just magically becomes a BCH size hull during the construction or conversion process, pay no attention to impossibility of fitting 10lbs of BCH into the 8lb BC bag.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, July 06, 2015 - 02:25 am: Edit

:p

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, July 06, 2015 - 02:50 am: Edit

Please remember that this is not a topic to debate, discuss, or banter Q&A.

FEDS

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, July 06, 2015 - 03:58 am: Edit

Sorry, I got my wires crossed and thought this was in the Q&A _discussions_ thread. ARGH. Please move all this stuff to there if that is ok.

By Daniel Waugh (Coriendal) on Wednesday, July 08, 2015 - 09:43 am: Edit

The Planetary Operations book has colony cost as 2+2+2(2 EP each for 3 turns) but the SIT(2015) has colony cost as 1+1+1.

Which is correct?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, July 08, 2015 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Colony build cost was corrected in CL37 and is now 1+1+1.

FEDS SENDS

By Daniel Waugh (Coriendal) on Friday, July 10, 2015 - 11:51 am: Edit

CL37 has the Colony cost as 1+1+1 but has a rider that using a SR to "survey" the hex, doing nothing else, eliminates the cost for one turn. So 2 EP total.

The Lyran's have an SR that is also a tug. If I use the SR to set up the colony it can't double dip and "survey" the hex also, can it?

I would think no, but wanted to make sure it was right. The Lyran's are the only ones who's SR's are also tugs.

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Sunday, July 12, 2015 - 07:24 am: Edit

Q526.46:

Question on when an empire can build an ASC. ASC production is covered by (526.46) but that rule does not list the date they can be built. Per SFB Master Ship Chart for the ASC (R1.31) these units can be deployed when an empire has deployed a warship SCS. Per (502.71), SCSs can be built on the third turn of PF production. However, I notice on the SITs and in the downloadable Order of Battle pdf that the date available used for the ACS is the second turn of PF production (not the third).

For example, the Kzinti ASC has a date available of Y181(A) on the SIT and Y181S+ in (762.0) on page 18 of the downloadable Order of Battle pdf. However, per (600.2) the Kzinti third turn of PF deployment is Fall Y181. When can empires build an ASC, on the second or third turn of PF deployment?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, July 12, 2015 - 10:30 pm: Edit

CVS and ACS are covered by (530.223) [and SIT] other Heavy Fighter Carriers are under the (70x.0) [Kzinti = Turn #20, Y178S, for both]

By Ken Rotar (Sir_Krotar) on Tuesday, July 21, 2015 - 08:05 pm: Edit

It is obvious that a starbase in a partial grid must pay for replacement fighters for a unit is not at the starbase. However, it is unclear whether the starbase must pay for replacement fighters when the unit is in the hex of the starbase.

These rules seem to indicate that a starbase might need to pay for replacement fighters for all units, regardless of where they are in the partial grid:

(501.55) COST: Replacement fighters are free unless drawn from a Partial Supply Grid (413.41).

(413.41) ABILITY: Each Economic Point produced in a Partial Supply Grid can be used to supply up to five units, including up to twelve replacement fighters.

However, these rules seems to imply that units on the starbase do not need to pay for replacement fighters since those units are supplied without cost:

(420.432) The repair facility must be in a Supply Grid to perform repairs. FRDs and battle stations (and other bases) must be connected to a Supply Grid (FRDs never form part of it); bases can conduct repairs in a Partial Supply Grid (413.34) and can replace fighters if they have the EPs to pay for them (413.41). See also (410.4).

(410.4) Units stacked with a friendly planet or base (e.g., starbase, sector base‡, battle station, base station‡, stellar fortress‡) and the base itself are always in supply regardless of whether or not that base has a supply path. (Mobile bases are not self-supplying.) This includes captured planets as long as a PDU has been deployed there.

(413.42) BASE: If a base is in the Partial Supply Grid (410.34), it draws Economic Points from the Partial Supply Grid for repair or production purposes (but continues to supply without cost the ships in its hex, as do planets and battle stations).

Though the 501.55 reference does seem pretty clear cut, there is an ambiguity in that 413.41 deals with situations where supply is being paid for because the units being supplied are not in the hex of the starbase (i.e. when 5 units pay 1EP for supply, they also receive 12 replacement fighters).

The confusion comes from the fact that in most of the rules regarding fighter replacement, it just mentions the obvious: the carrying unit must be in supply. However, when dealing with a partial grid, supply is handled differently depending on where the unit is in the grid.

Obviously, races that use a lot of fighters will be greatly impacted by the way these rules are interpreted as this situation happens frequently.

I am requesting a ruling.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, July 22, 2015 - 05:19 pm: Edit

From Ted Fay for reference to above question:

---

Quote:

Randy, yes the *ships* are in supply - but supply isn't what dictates whether or not you get free fighters. What 501.5 says is that it's *connection to the main grid* that gets you free fighters (the fact that you also get supply by connection to the main grid is irrelevant to the free fighter issue). 501.5 gives you an alternative to get some replacement fighters if you happen to be in a partial grid.

I think the confusion here is the previously unwritten assumption that supply by itself dictates access to free fighters. Per 501.5 it doesn't. Free fighters come with connection to the main grid (which incidentally also produces supply).

Logically it works like so if you're sitting on a base in a partial grid:

-So long as the ships stay on the base or planet in a partial grid they are in supply, but they don't get free fighters. Note that the instant you jump off the base or planet, you will be out of supply (unless of course your movement puts you into supply some other way), so providing supply per 413.41 actually does matter.

-If you wish to purchase fighters for those otherwise supplied ships in the partial grid, then you must also supply those ships for purposes of 413.41, which will then benefit them if they leave the base or planet. So, each EP will provide supply for up to 5 ships and also provide 12 replacement fighters. Those 5 ships will then be in supply *even if* they move off the base or planet and also don't put themselves into supply some other way. They also happen to get 12 replacement fighters per EP.

-If the ships supplied per 413.41 remain at the base or planet - or pick up supply in some other way during the turn - then they're still in supply (this time by two different methods - one per 413.41 and the other by being at the planet or base). Supply by multiple methods is irrelevant - if you're in supply you're in supply. However, *fighters* are not provided by supply - they're provided by connection to the main grid. 501.5 and 413.41 now also allow such ships to get some fighters back (12 per EP).

This isn't ambiguous, it's simple logic.

Ambiguity results when two or more readings of the rules results, logically, in two or more different interpretations of the rules.

Here, there's not two different answers, there's just one.

Richard said, "It does not say the fighters are paid for if the supply is free." and then Richard concluded that this is what makes it ambiguous.

No, it's not ambiguous at all. Maybe it's not spelled out it so many words, but that alone doesn't make it ambiguous. If every alternative has to be spelled out then the rules would be monstrously long.

The rules don't have to say the fighters are paid for if the supply is free. The reason it doesn't have to say that is because 501.5 tells you *precisely* under what circumstances free fighters arise. You *only* get free fighters if you have a connection to the main grid. If you are in a partial grid, then use 413.41. Logic dictates that if you have connection to the main grid you get both supply and free fighters, but due to the black letter of 501.5 supply alone does not provide free fighters - connection to the main grid does.

So, no, it's not ambiguous. To be ambiguous there would have to be a reading of the rules where free fighters could come simply as a matter of being in supply - but that is not what 501.5 says. It tells you precisely when you get free fighters and provides an alternative if you don't meet the stated criteria.

Maybe the rule isn't *spelled out* for F&E lawyers like us - but it is not ambiguous because there's no other logical alternative to reading 501.5 (regardless of how 413.41 would work).

---

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 23, 2015 - 10:20 am: Edit

Can a tug that is established as a supply source (412.2) voluntarily give up its status as a supply tug at any point during a turn, even if not attacked an in combat?

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Thursday, July 23, 2015 - 10:47 am: Edit

CL50 p.114

Q: In view of rules (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)?

Here is an example: 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 attack the supply tug. An approach battle is offered as required. After this 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 regular warship is the only assignment that can be changed during the turn so it is not possible for the supply tug to change missions until Alliance Turn #12.

A: The rules do not allow a supply tug to voluntarily change missions until the normal tug assignment step at the start of the owner’s next turn, so the Federation player cannot change the tug to a regular warship. It might seem (based on SFB) that the tug can simply “drop its pods” and become a warship, but the supply tug mission is more than carrying pods; it involves a chain of freighters; the tug is just the “tip of the supply convoy.”

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 23, 2015 - 11:23 am: Edit

Seems reasonable. Thanks!

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, July 23, 2015 - 11:57 am: Edit

Note that the Tug could simply withdraw from combat if eligible to do so under (302.1), then under (412.23) it losses its status because the tug retreated using the withdrawal rules.

---

Quote:

(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.

---

By Harry Theodore (Harryt) on Monday, July 27, 2015 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Hi. Me and a friend are diving into F&E by playing the 1st scenario. (Rulebooks not handy here at work.) We have the 2K version and all the additions through Combined Operations.

I have checked on this site for 2 questions/answers, hopefully easily answered, but no luck so far. I am hoping someone out there can help us out.

1. The Lyrans kill and then capture a Kzinti BC in Y169, can they convert it into a CV?

2. A Kzinti providence contains several Lyran ships and a Kzinti minor planet with 2PDU and a Monitor. We believe that the planet and PDU's do not stop Lyran control of the provence, vs. disruption, but are unsure if the Monitor changes the status or not as it is tied to the planet. Sorry for the lack of reference numbers and thanks in advance for any help.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, July 27, 2015 - 05:49 pm: Edit

1. No empire may convert a captured ship to a carrier. A captured carrier may be converted to a given empire's technology. I believe the answer is under the captured ship options.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, July 27, 2015 - 07:05 pm: Edit

Reference to my post above is (305.45).

By Harry Theodore (Harryt) on Tuesday, July 28, 2015 - 10:18 am: Edit

Thomas,

Thanks, I will look that rule up. (305.45) That answers 1, anybody know about #2??

Harry

By Michael Alan Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Tuesday, July 28, 2015 - 11:49 am: Edit

Province is the correct term. Providence is a city in Rhode Island. If the owner of a province has a unit in that province, it is his province, although in the above case it would be contested.

By Harry Theodore (Harryt) on Tuesday, July 28, 2015 - 01:33 pm: Edit

And thanks to you also Michael,

So the monitor counts to contest the province. That works for us! A whole lot of rules to try to remember, but we are having fun so far.

Rules are very clear overall, hopefully we won't have any more questions.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, July 28, 2015 - 01:53 pm: Edit

I think I remember a ruling that says because monitors are slow units they do not contest provinces by themselves.

By Marc Elwinger (Blades) on Wednesday, August 05, 2015 - 09:29 pm: Edit

When setting up a mobile base. After the approach battles.
The rule (510.22) is if the tug is destroyed or forced to retreat the base is destroyed. (510.23) adds the wording that if the tug abandons the base it is also destroyed.

What happens if the tug is crippled?

I think if the crippled tug is not placed in the battle force, that would count as abandoning the base and it is destroyed.

I think the tug is REQUIRED to assume the (509.1-1) Tug Under Repair mission immediately, when damaged. Does that count as abandoning the base, destroying it, even though the tug is still in the hex. I dont see a rule that clearly requires that. But the tug is no longer doing the (509.1-C) Move/Set Up Mobile Base mission.

What happened if the tug is repaired in place (repair ship)? Is the base still there for the tug to try to set up again, later