| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, November 17, 2015 - 02:26 am: Edit |
Turtle: Please research and report here when able. Just the facts and rules citations please.
Thanks,
FEDS
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, November 17, 2015 - 10:57 pm: Edit |
Per FEDS request to message dated: 11/17/15 - 02:26 am:
F&E 2010 General Rule: (432.21) COST OF FIGHTERS ON CARRIERS: Fighter factors are added to the production cost of ships and pods (two Economic Points per factor). Note that this makes fighters inordinately expensive; the cost represents providing a supply of fighters for the average service life of a carrier. A carrier (base, PDU, etc.) cannot be produced without some or all of its fighters.
F&E FO2015 Federation F-111 Specific Rules: (527.13) COST: The standard rules treat F-111s as any other fighter. That is to say, an NVH is built with a lifetime annuity of F-111s, costing two points per factor. (This makes an NVH expensive as the Federation must pay 18 EPs for the F-111s.) Free fighter factors can be used.
See (527.16) for an alternative cost system.
(527.131) The F-111s on auxiliaries pay the full price and not the discounted auxiliary price.
F&E FO2015 Heavy Fighters Specific Rule: (530.222) Conversion: Changing an existing carrier to use heavy fighters requires payment of the EPs (or free fighter factors) for the difference in cost. This changeover has no other cost and does not require the use of any conversion capacity by a base.
Only carriers in supply can be changed in this way. Changeovers of existing carriers to heavy fighters are limited only by the rules herein; converting non-carriers into carriers for heavy fighters or building new heavy fighter carriers is under the normal limits on carrier production. After the PF introduction date, the production of a heavy fighter carrier or conversion of a carrier to heavy fighters may be counted against that empire’s PFT limit (530.223) or against its carrier limit, and one conversion of an existing carrier to heavy fighters may be done per turn above either limit. Note that Federation carriers for A-20 heavy assault fighters have their own specific (lower) limits (532.0).
F&E FO2015 A-20 Heavy Fighters Specific Rule: (532.222) Changing an existing carrier to use A-20s is done as a conversion as per (530.222).
F&E CO 2K Specific Rule: (513.113) There are two types of auxiliary carriers. Small auxiliary carriers (SAV) cost 2 points (plus six for the cost of the fighters). No race can have more than four (Feds, Klingons, and Kzintis can have six, Hydrans five). Large auxiliary carriers (LAV) cost 4 points (plus 12 for the cost of the fighters). No race can have more than three (Feds, Klingons, and Kzintis can have four). Note the discounted cost of fighters.
F&E FO2015 Specific Exception to (527.0): (440.1) FEDERATION HEAVY FIGHTER CARRIERS
This rule from the original Carrier War is replaced by rule (527.0) on a later page. As a special discount, the first two NVHs cost seven points plus nine points for the F-111 fighters (10 if A-20 fighters are used).
This text is used to denote a very specific rule regarding the Federation F-111 fighters and their production cost related to the specified units quoted in the actual rule itself.
| By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Sunday, November 29, 2015 - 04:52 pm: Edit |
Back on Aug 10 I asked the following:
I have noticed, as far as I can tell, the ISC War rules make no reference to the Kzinti bases on the Lyran border being destroyed.
Kzinti bases on the Fed and Klingon border are destroyed (625.E433), and Lyran bases on the Kzinti border are destroyed (625.E442).
----------------
Now, Im sure they should be destroyed but there is nothing specific on it. Every other Empire has all their bases listed which are to be destroyed, except for the Kzinti on the Lyran border.
Just wanting confirmation, thanks.
This was an oversight, the Kzinti bases along the Lyran border were also destroy at the end of the war.
CHANGE TO READ: (625.E433) Kzinti Base and Planet Disposition: All bases along the Klingon-Kzinti and Lyran-Kzinti Neutral Zones were destroyed except for a newly built BTS at 0904 (“Rampart”).
FEDS SENDS
| By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, December 11, 2015 - 03:12 pm: Edit |
Allied Retreat Priority Question (302.76):
Assume there are three Coalition ships in a hex. 1 is Klingon, 1 is Lyran, 1 is Romulan. They are attacked by a superior force. The Coalition select the Lyran ships as the flagship and exclude the Klingon and Romulan ships from the battle. The Lyran ship is destroyed. The other two Coalition ships retreat.
Whose retreat priority do the ships follow? The Lyran flagship was destroyed and isn't retreating. But was the last flagship selected. Can the retreating Klingon and Romulan retreat using the Lyran Flagship's priorities?
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, December 11, 2015 - 05:17 pm: Edit |
(302.76) ALLIED FORCES: In the case of a retreating force consisting of units from two or more allies, they must all remain together and use the retreat priorities of the empire which provided the flagship of the last Battle Force (or the force that produced the first retreating units, or the first Battle Force if using a retreat before combat). An ally cannot, in this case, refuse (207.21) entry to an off-map area. Units might be forced to retreat out of supply by this rule.
Quote:
(302.761) The ships of Allied forces may retreat separately, although each of these Allied forces must follow the requirements of (302.73) in selecting a retreat hex. While this decision can be made each time a retreat is required, if used, all units of a given empire must retreat together. If it is possible for both empires to retreat to the same hex after all four priorities of (302.73) are applied, they must do so.
(302.76) specifically says to use the retreat priorities of the empire which provided the flagship of the last Battle Force and does not say anything about the flagship's survival.
Therefore, in this case, if the Coalition players want to retreat together under (302.76) then they use the prior round flagship's priorities even if the flagship was destroyed in that round. Otherwise, the surviving forces can utilize (302.761) and retreat separately.
Since F&E is a grand strategy game, it is difficult to know what happens at a tactical or operational level as it may been established as part of the battle plan that the flagship made arrangements and/or determinations with its supply grid as to what actions were to be followed in the event of a group retreat -- the F&E rules in this case are an abstraction of those actions.
FEDS SENDS
| By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Thursday, December 17, 2015 - 08:42 am: Edit |
(438.11) I am posting this question here since I am unsure if posting in the FO2015 topic is still allowed and perhaps I am just being dense and rule (438.11) is clear to other people. Per the preliminary FO2015 rules “The four turn requirement for long-term capture is counted from Economic Phase to Economic Phase”. Is the economic phase always the capturing players phase? For example, if the Klingons captured a Federation province on Coalition turn 10 and kept it captured without interruption, would Long-Term Capture occur on the Klingon turn 14 economic phase? If Klingons capture a Federation province on Alliance turn 10 would the Long-Term Capture also occur on the Klingon turn 10 economic phase?
Unless overruled by ADB, the long term capture process begins at the very start the very next economic phase of the upcoming player turn.
If player A is phasing and captures a province Q, then at the start of players B's economic phase the long term capture process clock begins for province Q.
However, if player A is phasing BUT player B somehow captures province P from player A, then at the start of players B's economic phase the long term capture process clock begins for province P.
FEDS SENDS
| By James Lowry (Rindis) on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 - 12:43 am: Edit |
What pods can the Lyran NTG in Special Ops use? I haven't seen anything in SO to say whether it can use Lyran-style pods, or just K-pods (presumably in pairs).
| By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 - 07:09 am: Edit |
The NTGs can use the both the Klingon pods and Lyran pallets. This is from R11.97
Ryan
FEDS: CONCURS
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 - 07:37 pm: Edit |
As can the NSR (R11.75) [use either pallets or K-pods]
FEDS: CONCURS
| By Mike Oliver (Mholiver) on Sunday, February 28, 2016 - 06:27 pm: Edit |
help here 308.861 (using the SIDS rule) say 3 (308.861) A battle station can be damaged by this system. It requires three SIDS steps to cripple.
444.15 say 2 SIDS..............which rule is right
They are both correct - note the difference between a BS and a BTS.
Quote:
(444.15) DAMAGE: Base stations can be crippled with two SIDS steps (5 points if voluntary)...
FEDS SENDS
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, February 28, 2016 - 07:20 pm: Edit |
Both are correct
308.861 is a battle station (BTS)
444.15 is a base station (BS)
| By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 - 12:55 am: Edit |
(512.0) says Tholian planets are protected by Tholian web, and it says Tholian bases not part of the Tholian supply grid are not protected by web. Rule (446.0) says colonies are planets, and its says colonies are not part of the supply grid. Are Tholian colonies protected by web? (446.31) Planet: A colony planet is a planet for purposes of the rules, but cannot serve as a supply, retrograde, or strategic movement point. (512.1) DIRECTED DAMAGE: Directed Damage cannot be used against a Tholian base or planet. [Exception: SAFs (520.0) from Combined Operations.] Bases for this rule include starbases, battle stations, mobile bases,...
FEDS RULING: Unless overruled by ADB, based upon the rules quoted above, Tholian colonies and colony bases that have a supply path to the Tholian Capital or are inside of original Tholian territory are protected by Tholian webs.
Quote:
512.4) THOLIANS ONLY: Non-Tholian bases cannot be protected by web. Bases cannot be transferred to or from the Tholians. Tholian bases outside of Tholian territory cannot use web if they do not have a supply path to the Tholian capital.
Is a Tholian OPB protected by web? It is not on the (512.0) base list either, but (453.0) says treat OPBs as setup MBs which would put them in web by 512.
FEDS RULING: Unless overruled by ADB, based upon the rules quoted above, Tholian operational bases that have a supply path to the Tholian Capital or are inside of original Tholian territory are protected by Tholian webs.
Quote:
(453.0) OPERATIONAL BASES (SO) Operational bases are built, and function, like Mobile Bases...
(453.31) General: An Operational Base functions in combat like a set-up mobile base...
| By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, March 21, 2016 - 06:48 pm: Edit |
(412.2) Tugs as supply points.
Question: Does a tug need to be in supply at the start of a turn to be declared a supply point?
The rules make no mention of needing to be in supply to be declared a supply point. There are numerous situations where one would want to declare a tug that is out of supply at the start of a turn as a supply point, that would become a valid supply point as soon as a few ships were moved during operational movement and opened up a supply path to the tug in question.
Here are the rules that apply to this question:
Quote:
(412.21) DESIGNATION: The owning player designates a tug at the start of his Player Turn as a supply point (413.3), using (509.1) Mission D. It remains in that role until the start of the owning player’s next Player Turn, when it could be redesignated. While in this role, it serves as a point for Strategic Movement. Tugs cannot be used as Retrograde Points (206.21). Tugs using this mission are Strategic Movement Nodes (204.201).
(411.1) DEFINITION: The Supply Route is a chain of no more than six hexes, not including the hex the unit is in but including the hex containing the supply point (412.0).
(411.2) RESTRICTIONS Supply Routes cannot pass through a hex containing enemy units unless that hex also contains friendly units...
(410.1) WHICH UNITS ARE IN SUPPLY: A unit is considered to be in supply if it has a “Supply Route” to a “supply point” (usually a base) and if that point is in the “Supply Grid”...
(411.31) SHIPS: The Supply Route cannot pass through a hex adjacent to enemy ships unless the Supply Route hex contains friendly units or is adjacent to friendly ships (including the ships being supplied)...
Based upon the above rules, they appear to allow a tug to assume Mission D at the start of a turn. Then at various time throughout both player turns, the supply tug may find itself out of supply and back in supply depending of the various player actions through the full turn cycle.
FEDS RULING: Unless overruled by ADB, an eligible transport unit can by assigned as a supply point, using (509.1D) at the start of a player turn. Throughout the turn, while assigned this mission, the supply tug must make standard supply checks during the sequence of play to determine if it is in has a valid supply route. If the supply tug itself has a valid supply route open after a given supply check is made, then it may be used according to the rules to perform its supply mission. If the supply tug itself does NOT have a valid supply route open after a given supply check is made, then it may NOT perform its supply mission until a valid supply route is reestablished (after a given supply check is made) to the supply tug. All other supply rules apply normally.
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 - 06:59 am: Edit |
Additional Note to post
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, November 17, 2015 - 10:57 pm: Edit
Per FEDS request to message dated: 11/17/15 - 02:26 am:
(527.16) All F-111 units must use the same
replacement system, either (527.13) or (527.16).
| By Bruce Harmon (Rbhfleet) on Sunday, March 27, 2016 - 08:46 pm: Edit |
Just curious as to whether the Romulan KC9 is going to show up on any other counter sheet besides the F&E Countersheet E+F in the basic game??
I found it interesting that you can get Romulan K10s in Countersheet RS from reinforcements which would actually give you a way to have more K10s than KC9s. 
If any body had a few spare KC9 counters I would be interested in them.
I also noticed that the conversion cost to convert an Hydran LC to a Hydran LM or LB is not listed in the F&E 2010 SIT list.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, March 27, 2016 - 09:18 pm: Edit |
I think the Hydran LC->LM can be found on the website, it is one EP. It may be that LC->LM is also there, you'd have to look.
I would not expect to see more KC9 counters any time soon, but I could be wrong. I haven't seen many (if any) C8->KC9 conversions in games I have played or watched.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 28, 2016 - 12:49 am: Edit |
There is a unified KC9 on F&E countersheet ALPHA from F&E2010.
| By Mike Oliver (Mholiver) on Monday, March 28, 2016 - 10:28 am: Edit |
I think Im in the right place for this................In a Approach Battle......can the defender used a Bases EW in the battle (302.22) SUB-STEP 2A—APPROACH BATTLE: The Attacking Player may challenge the Defending Fleet to fight at a distance from the base sufficient for its weapons and scout sensors (but not its fighters or PFs) to be ineffective. This is known as the “approach battle”.
No, base EW cannot be used in an approach battle away from the base. Per rule:
FEDS SENDS
Quote:
| By Bruce Harmon (Rbhfleet) on Monday, March 28, 2016 - 04:15 pm: Edit |
If there is one on the Alpha counter sheet from F&E 2010 that would solve the problem. I think it is just on countersheet E+F in F&E 2010.
thank you for the info on the LC->LM. Is LC->LB 1 ep as well???
I think it would cool if there was a countersheet that had ships where only one that was ever produced historically as shown in SFB. Could be put in reinforcements 2.
| By Mike Oliver (Mholiver) on Monday, March 28, 2016 - 04:16 pm: Edit |
thanks
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, March 28, 2016 - 04:32 pm: Edit |
Go look up the LC->LB on the SIT on this website to get that answer for sure. My memory says it is more than 1 EP, but I could be wrong.
| By Bruce Harmon (Rbhfleet) on Monday, March 28, 2016 - 06:05 pm: Edit |
Your right Chuck about one being on the alpha sheet in F&E 2010 but it is hard to see as when I zoom in the sheet gets fuzzy. Go figure.
I pulled the SITs from the web site if the conversion costs are there I'll Find them.
Thanks for the help.
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, March 28, 2016 - 09:24 pm: Edit |
I think Im in the right place for this................In a Approach Battle......can the defender used a Bases EW in the battle
Friend of the court addendum to FEDS reply to the above question.
Quote:Q307.2 Does an EWN (537.35) provide the benefit (owner's option) during the pursuit battle when the owner of the EWN is the pursuing force?
FEDS: Yes, the benefit provided under (537.35) applies to all battles in a qualified EWN hex (approach, standard, and pursuit). The one point of EW from an EWN can be applied in SSC also, if SSC is somehow applicable.
Note for consideration: This came about in a non capital hex battle that had a planet with PDUs, and 2 more PDUs established as FDUs in different locations to create the multisystem hex.
| By Mike Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, April 02, 2016 - 09:10 pm: Edit |
i would like to know each Races get 1 Free ENG Unit right ...........all other you got to paid for them when the Race to to war a other..........Right
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, April 02, 2016 - 10:07 pm: Edit |
Mike:
Huh?
Please rephrase your question. Thanks
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |