Yup,

---

Quote:

From CL 32, Q&A Archives Feb. 2006:
Partial Grid Replacements: Replacement fighters are free (501.5), unless the carrier is supplied from a partial grid. A partial grid pays one EP for a dozen replacement fighters (413.41). Some players have argued that since a ship stacked on a planet is “in supply” it should get free replacement fighters. That is simply not the case and is not supported by rules. The planet pumps its EPs into the partial grid and the partial grid pays for the replacement fighters.

---

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Wednesday, July 22, 2015 - 08:07 pm: Edit

*scratches head*
Well, I've been doing that one wrong...

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, July 22, 2015 - 11:07 pm: Edit

Heads-up guys...

A good technique to search for rulings is to do a key word search using the BBS search engine at:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-search.cgi

Plug-in the rule number and it will give you links to the rulings that use that rule number. Many of your questions have already been answered in the past and it is important that you research your questions first so as to eliminate the workload we sometimes get. It both frustrates and relieves me to find a ruling already exists so please use the tools available first. If you have checked for rulings and note that in your question, then I know that I am more likely to give those questions higher priority when answering your questions. I still check for existing rulings even if you said you did just to make sure I don't overlook something.

Bottomline: Please check the rulebooks and rulings first as it really helps everyone.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, July 23, 2015 - 06:16 am: Edit

A couple of quick tips when using the keyword search.

1. Make sure you chose only the Federation & Empire topic to search. Things like Stasis Field Generators can and will return results from the Star Fleet Battles topic. Other searches can return things from 3 or more topics if you don't choose to limit the search.

2. When clicking on a returned result, open it in a new tab. This lets you return to the search results much quicker and usually with less frustration as it sometimes deletes the little bit of "useful header information" if you click the back button.

3. If using a rule number search, you can skip over things that say reports from the front in the result. They are usually a reply to a question for a specific rule number or something similar.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Thursday, July 23, 2015 - 09:23 am: Edit

CL24 p. 106 - Q2302: A fleet of ships is stacked on a starbase which is not connected to the race’s main supply grid. Do the ships in this fleet receive unlimited replacement fighters?

A: If the starbase is in the original home territory, not in allied or captured territory, it supplies all ships stacked on it (410.4). If ships are NOT at the starbase, then it costs money to support them and replace fighters.

CL32 p. 88 - Partial Grid Replacements: Replacement fighters are free (501.5), unless the carrier is supplied from a partial grid. A partial grid pays one EP for a dozen replacement fighters (413.41). Some players have argued that since a ship stacked on a planet is “in supply” it should get free replacement fighters. That is simply not the case and is not supported by rules. The planet pumps its EPs into the partial grid and the partial grid pays for the replacement fighters.

CL38 p. 84 - Q: Also relating to partial supply grids: It’s been ruled that, while units stacked with a base/planet in a partial supply grid are in supply, they still have to pay for their replacement fighters. Does this also apply to the base/PDU on the planet (i.e., do they have to pay for their fighters)?

A: The cost for supply is stated for units. A PDU is a unit.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 01:53 pm: Edit

From R Padilla in Q&A:

"Q446.12:

Per this rule, a colony can be started only during Operational Movement. I also assume it could be started if the Tug was in the target hex at the start of the turn and didn't move, as I believe Operational Movement is just defining the phase in which a Colony can being construction in.


Quote:
(446.12) Construction: The developing race must send to the hex (by operational movement) a tug (or two LTTs) or a convoy (civilian or military but not commercial), which must remain in that hex for three consecutive turns.


Under the Fleet Transports section of the new 2010 rules we have the following:


Quote:
(509.1-X) Develop Colony*: A tug can be assigned this mission (446.1) during the Phasing Player Turn when it begins Operational or Strategic Movement. Groups of theater transports can perform this mission (509.22). It takes two LTTs to perform this mission (or one LTT over six turns). The transport is subject to (308.453). This is one of the few "tug missions" that a convoy can perform. Theater transports can use (509.23).


I am not clear on why a player would want to assign Mission X during Strategic Movement, if it can not start a colony in that phase? This appears to be a conflict in the rules. And since the 2010 rulebook is newer, was this change to the tug mission done on purpose to allow the establishment of a colony during Strategic Movement? Or is this a mistake and the text of the Mission rule needs to be changed? "


It allows you to change WHICH units are doing the upgrade during strategic movement. You could (for example) start a colony with an ENG on some turn, then replace it with another unit (perhaps because the ENG is now desired in the offmap for MSY production).

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 02:45 pm: Edit

I don't think it does. The Movement part of building a colony only applies to the First Turn of Colonial Development. After that turn, it is instead captured during the Economics Phase instead (2B3 of the Production Phase).

There is technically no option to allow the transfer of the work to another unit, or set of units, that I can see.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 03:22 pm: Edit

It is in fact allowed, this was established some months ago on these forums (possibly during the game The Sabre Strikes). It also happened early in the game Typhoon Kahless.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Ruling?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 06:05 pm: Edit

You'll have to go search through all that if you want a specific thing.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 08:04 pm: Edit

I found the ruling using the keyword search looking for "446.12":

---

Quote:

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Q446.12 "If the tug/convoy leaves the hex or is destroyed, development is canceled and all EPs spent for it are lost"

Question: Can you change units while constructing a colony. For example, on turn 1 you start a colony with a tug, can you then move a convoy in on turn 2 and let it take over the building of the colony?

Q450.14 - Same question for minor shipyards.


By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 04:22 am: Edit

Pete:

A446.12 I see no issue where one tug hands-off the mission to another tug so long as there is a positive hand-off to the proper number of eligible construction unit(s). Positive hand-off means there must never be a time where the prior-turn construction unit(s) leaves the hex before the required number of new building units arrive. If that happens then the unit under construction is deemed to be improperly abandoned.

A450.14 Ibid.

FEDS SENDS

---

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - 08:13 am: Edit

I was actually just asking of there was a ruling, but thanks for the post that's helpful. It makes sense, I just saw no enabling rule that would allow it.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 05:31 pm: Edit

There is a question on PAL activation on the Q&A thread. I believe the answer is that the PAL is an activation, but it costs 5 EPs, not 1. See rule 442.51. The PALs on turns 2 and 4 are 5 EP activations.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Saturday, September 19, 2015 - 06:17 pm: Edit

In Section (653) there are a number of balance options including one for the Hydrans entitled "Fatalism." It allows the reinforcement of the home worlds with the addition of two starbases in the capital hex. Does anyone happen to know if those starbases may both be added to the capital planet? We have a dispute about this issue, one side saying that the rule adds the starbases to the "home worlds" plural (and thus may not all be added to the same place), the other saying that the starbases may be added to the capital hex without any limit as to where. May either or both of those additional starbases be added to the capital planet itself?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, September 19, 2015 - 09:05 pm: Edit

Jeffery:

There are two other systems in the Hydran capital hex, each with a major planet. No where within any formal F&E product will one find dual SBs at the start of a war over any one planet (note that players free are to build them during a scenario as such). The Feds, Klingons, and ISC have multiple SBs within their capital hexes but not more than one SB within any system and none of them are over a minor world.

Unless overruled by ADB; the two SBs mentioned under (653.9E) must be placed in separate systems and over a major world.

FEDS SENDS

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Saturday, September 19, 2015 - 10:52 pm: Edit

Chuck,

Thanks very much.

Jeff

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 19, 2015 - 11:58 pm: Edit

G. O. D. Confirms the star base ruling.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, November 02, 2015 - 10:52 am: Edit

From the Q&A Section:

---

Quote:

Commercial Convoy (443.00) Question:

I went looking for answers in the archive, and failed to find one.

During the time when the Kzinti are at war and the Federation are not (i.e. presumably T1-T6), can the Fed-Kzinti commercial convoy be attacked if it wanders out side of inactive territory? Or does doing this activate the Federation (as the Com Con is presumably a Federation unit)?

For example, on T1, the Fed-Kzinti Com Con leaves Fed SB 2204. It reaches the Marquis SB on T3. It doesn't want to get caught in open space when the Feds are inevitably attacked on T7, so it wants to go through the Kzinti off map zone back to Fed space. So on T4, the Fed-Kzinti Com Con moves 2 hexes north from the Marquis SB in 1704 into hex 1702 (hoping to move off map on the next turn). Can the Coalition attack the Fed-Kzinti Com Con (on T5), even though the Feds are still not involved in the war? Would doing so provoke the Feds into Limited War?

---

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, November 02, 2015 - 11:21 am: Edit

Yeah, I'm trying to avoid the 5 ep cost, as we aren't using diplomacy, and the money the com con generates the Feds on T6 when it gets back to them vanishes into nothing.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, November 02, 2015 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Remember the Feds can cancel a PWC build to get the money too. It's major bang for the buck to get the Kzinti 10 EPs on T3 and another 10 on T7.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, November 02, 2015 - 01:59 pm: Edit

I am unaware of a rule that says the Feds (or anyone else) can cancel PWC (in general) to pay for stuff. I know it comes up for specific purposes in specific rules, but there is no general enabling rule that I am aware of.

So I don't think you can do what Rob proposes.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, November 02, 2015 - 02:10 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

(602.171) The Federation receives the ships on the PWC schedule and could in theory cancel some of these to divert money to other items specified in the rules.

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, November 02, 2015 - 02:26 pm: Edit

It also says 'other items specified in the rules'.

There's no rule that specifies this can be done to purchase a commercial convoy.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, November 02, 2015 - 03:26 pm: Edit

No rule that says it can't be done either. Also the Feds would have diplomatic income available.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, November 02, 2015 - 03:53 pm: Edit

No rule says you can't means nothing unless you have and cite a general rule saying you can.