Relevant to the recent BATS and SIDS discussion:

Note that 308.861 specifies that SIDS cannot be used against a crippled battle station.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 03:16 pm: Edit

308.811 defines a directed damage SIDS as 18 points and 308.84 defines a starbase voluntary SIDS as 4.5 points. 308.86 changes the number of points resolved by a _voluntary_ SIDS on certain other bases, but does not change the amount of damage required to score a _directed_ SIDS; the various subsections of 308.86 explicitly use the term "voluntary" (only).
(edited to correct a rules number typo)

By Marc Elwinger (Blades) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Thanks Richard, i was missing that in all the other text.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 09:04 pm: Edit

I don't think one can over-cripple bases and a BTS with 2 SIDS has only 4 voluntary points left, if there is nothing left to take the damage the BTS has to take it - 4 for the last SIDS and 6 for the cripple...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 28, 2016 - 08:50 am: Edit

If all eligible BATS are destroyed, is Far Stars arrival on map prevented?

What happens if this is the case?

For example, if the Hydrans in a Howling Wind scenario destroy BATS 0109 on turn one, what happens with Far Stars deployment?

If the BATS in 0104 is not destroyed the Lyran Far Stars Fleet could possibly arrive there under (204.39). However, if this is a sector based scenario it could be outside the allowed field of play.

By Joel Mauel (Mauel1968) on Saturday, October 15, 2016 - 07:28 pm: Edit

Concerning rule 318.2, Kzinti Drone Stockpile. The rule states that the Kzinti have 48 POINTS of drones. Is this 48 "Drone"points or 48 "Economic" points. If it is "Drone" points, then I think that the rule should state that, to avoid confusion.

Thank you for your time.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, October 15, 2016 - 08:12 pm: Edit

(318.2) is 48 points of Drone Bombardment, or 4.8 EPs worth of drones from Drone Bombardment. Basically 4 rounds of DB for 3 DFs or other 4 point drone bombardment ships such as CLDs and CDs.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 - 07:16 am: Edit

---

Quote:

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 - 02:35 am: Edit

Limited war question:

Production is limited by not being able to overbuild or accelerate.

Its pretty clear you are allowed to build your schedule and preform allowed substitutions.

My big question is to what extent can I convert ships? Can I convert unreleased ships? Can I only convert released ships (including new construction, of course as they are released)? Can I use all conversion facilities? Can I only use conversion facilities in released fleet's territory? Can I not perform ANY conversions?

---

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 - 09:50 am: Edit

Thanks for the reference to 600.32. Because it led me to 600.323:

An empire not on wartime status cannot perform conversions of its ships.

This really makes the question is "Limited War" a "wartime status" or does that only refer to full war?

The more I read in the rulebook the clearer it becomes that "Limited War" is not a "wartime status" and indeed Wartime status is what I was referring to as "full war" which is never used as a term. Strict rules as written would appear to now mean that conversion cannot be done at all in Limited War.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 - 10:07 am: Edit

Limited War is a wartime status. (652.211)

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 - 10:12 am: Edit

Ryan, are you sure that applies to the Grand Campaign and not just the Free Campaign?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 - 10:23 am: Edit

Rules (600.4) (6000.5) and (600.6) refer you to rules in the (652) series. So yes it applies to the Grand Campaign.

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 - 10:27 am: Edit

Brilliant!

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, November 17, 2016 - 07:43 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By Harry Theodore (Harryt) on Saturday, November 12, 2016 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Haven't played this in a while and thinking about trying it again after finishing the current game on the table. We had thought about the whole campaign, but with only two players it may bog down. Anyways I have a question about turn 1 coalition. Can either the Lyrans or Klingons opt for limited war status on turn one? (The purpose being to extend full war economy by 1 turn, whether or not this is a "good" move being immaterial, just if its legal.) Thanks in advance for any clarification of this, the rules are buried currently.

Harry

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 13, 2016 - 08:07 am: Edit

Quote:
(601.2) SCENARIO SCHEDULE
TURN #1, FALL Y168
Set up in this order: Lyran, Kzinti, Klingon.
Historical: Lyrans invade Kzinti territory.
Lyrans are not required to attack. Kzintis may attack if the Lyrans do not


The above copied from the 2010 rulebook.

By Harry Theodore (Harryt) on Thursday, November 17, 2016 - 12:15 pm: Edit

I take that as a yes, either power can extend full war production through turn 16 simply by being at limited war on turn 1. Thanks.

---

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, November 18, 2016 - 07:29 pm: Edit

The Lyrans could use limited war on Turn #1 as they does allow them to build all of their production and a few conversions, they just couldn't attack the Kzinti (reserves!)

By Michael Alan Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Saturday, November 19, 2016 - 04:13 am: Edit

The Klingons are at Full War through a scenario rule but are not allowed tp attack. That specific rule might actually work against his tactical note.

By Harry Theodore (Harryt) on Saturday, November 19, 2016 - 12:10 pm: Edit

We are playing (if we play) 2000 rules including the expansions up to but not including Planetary Operations. I just moved all my game collection and F&E is still buried somewhere in the mess. We have played many scenarios, but have never gone past turn 6 (Not sure the scenario name) starting from the beginning. From memory I was pretty sure Lyrans could be at limited war, but without the wording from the rules, not sure about the Klingons.

If they MUST be at full war, then my idea wont work. If they can, it makes sense to me to save the full production for a later turn at higher income. If legal, can anyone suggest a reason this would be a BAD idea? I trust the regular players should have an idea of the merits and disadvantages of the idea??? Thanks for any input.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, November 19, 2016 - 08:07 pm: Edit

(601.161) doesn't give the Klingons much lee-way...

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, November 20, 2016 - 01:28 pm: Edit

It's an interesting idea.

Going to limited war or peacetime for the Lyrans on turn 1 gets you a delayed exhaustion for probably 1 turn. However, say you're at limited war then you get 75% of your econ on turn 1. That's the same as level 1 exhaustion, so that's a wash. The only difference is that the Lyran economy almost certainly will be larger by turn 15. So, you might earn an extra 10-20 EPs, net.

Still 10-20 EPs is a GOOD THING(tm).

You may wish to expand your tac note by suggesting the Coalition player should put more of the captured territory and planets into Lyran hands instead of Klingon hands (e.g., put all but one or two minor planets in the Hydran capital into Lyran hands). Doing so will maximize the amount of cash saved by delaying exhaustion by 1 turn.

Most of the time players put the bulk of captured territory in Klingon hands, who can use it the best. But this way you maximize EPs, and can transfer extra $$$ to the Klingons as needed (within the limit of 20, plus what you can transfer via WYNCOVIA).

Anyhoo, good idea. Might build on it as above, but kudos.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, November 21, 2016 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Conversion of Kzinti SDFs

(701.1) says "May make one scout substitution per turn, and any number of scout conversions."

"Can produce one drone ship per year by sustitution plus limited conversions by empire. Ships which are both scouts and drone ships count against both scout and drone ship limits (432.41)."

(705.3) says "SDF for FF once per turn (within drone and scout limits)" (presumably this governs substiturion only).

The Kzinti are capable of converting a DF to an SDF for 1EP. This is not creating a new drone ship (as the DF is already a drone ship). It is creating a new scout by substitution (which is unlimited).

Can the Kzinti convert an unlimited number of DF into SF (assuming money and conversion capacity) in a single turn? Yes, either the DF is converted to SDF or SF. Both are conversions to a scout.

By Harry Theodore (Harryt) on Friday, December 02, 2016 - 05:13 pm: Edit

OK, dug out my rules and I still think it is possible for the Klingons to be at Limited War on turn 1. I do think it comes down to "designer intent" and rules "hierarchy" though. I will state my case and see what FEAR or FEDS has to say about my logic.

Start with 601.1 Scenario notes for "The Wind."

601.16 deals with races not at war.

601.161 Deals specifically with the Klingons. States that they are at "full wartime mobilization" but not at war. Only restrictions are can't leave territory and all fleets unreleased. Says they can do "anything else" a race at war could do.

601.162 Deals with the Hydrans who are at "wartime economy for later exhaustion, but not at war. They also get PWC until active.

Different language in both cases, 1 is in charge of their economy, the other isn't.

Jump to 651.0 The Grand Campaign under .1 it states that "Free Campaign" rules govern the Grand Campaign, specifically, 652.2 (Economic levels) and 652.3 (Economic exhaustion).

From these references, I believe that the Klingons occupy a unique position in the game.

All other "at peace" races receive PWC and have NO control of their economy until they enter the war.

Any nation at war can choose to go to peace or limited war simply by moving their ships inside their borders, where all current Klingon ships happen to be.

Since the object of the "secret alliance" between the Lyrans and Klingons is to stay secret until they both are attacking, I can not see how a less warlike stance (limited war vs. full war) on the part of the Klingons would be out of line.

If this "strategy" will unbalance the game, then I can see why it would not be allowed, but I think the rules and intent would support my idea.

So someone in authority, please confirm it is possible or shoot me down. :-)

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Tuesday, December 06, 2016 - 04:42 am: Edit

The Phony War was a period during world war 2 that lasted about 8 months during which no major land battles occurred on the western front. The digestion of Poland, the passage of winter and the process of moving the German army from east to west were the major reasons the germans didn't launch any assaults. And the allies, France and England, at the time, were just too reluctant to launch any offensives.

In F&E the general war has a historical progress from Lyrans attacking the Kzinti, the Klingons joining in soon after, the Hydrans trying to take advantage of the distraction to improve their strategic position about a year later. And then seven turns in the Klingons start the real main show of the war by invading the Federation. A little over a year later on turn 10 the Romulans are persuaded to join in the invasion of the Federation. And a year later the Gorn decide that must get involved to make sure they aren't picked off after the Federation is destroyed.

But the Grand Campaign scenario (651) takes into account the possibility that the players may wish to change the timing of each escalation of the war and provides rules for both economically and militarily reacting to the course of events on different time tables.

While many of these rules are in the scenarios themselves, such as (601) "The Wind", (602) "The Tempest" and (603) "The Hurricane", some of these rules are also broken out into their own sections to help with clarity and allow their use in more general cases, (652) The Free Campaign, (654) Limited War. To be clear the rules for the economic levels section (652.2) starts out saying, "This is, in fact, a general rule which applies to the historical campaign as well as to a free campaign."

The reason I am prefacing this post with all this background is because there can be a case where the Coalition decides to start the invasion of the Federation much later than the historical kick off on Y171F. And there is a pretty clear reaction to this delay from the Federation in the rules (602.4) The Limited War scenario. Specifically, this is a Limited War in support of the Kzinti. It releases a couple of fleets (4th and 2nd) and their territories. It allows some fleets to reposition freely (3rd and Home). It allows the Federation to improve its level of economic output (.75%) and save economic points. But it also leaves in place many restrictions (634.2) Actions Which Are Not Allowed for instance.

Specifically, there is no rule allowing the Federation, yet, to do anything more than Limited War economy or operate a limited number of ships in Kzinti space. Now, the Federation doesn't have to do any of this, but there is no reason why they wouldn't. It vastly improves their initial defensive posture over what staying at peace would accomplish. And Limited War doesn't start the economic exhaustion timer.

But it doesn't have to stop there, say the Klingons and Lyrans are putting their extra time to use and subdue the Kzinti and in their eagerness find themselves unable to launch their offensive simultaneous with the Romulans on turn 10? At this point, things start to get a bit confusing. The Romulans, by scenario rule, have been at Wartime economy since turn 1, producing their pre-war construction, paying for Klingon mothball ships, and presumably doing something with all that money. Maybe more of their empire still needed survey and development, like the 3 provinces still not explored already by turn 10? Or perhaps they were spending that cash building those battle stations and starbase that show up instantly upon properly surveying the provinces? Or building up the industrial infrastructure of those two planets?

Now the Romans, discovering that their erstwhile coalition partners aren't ready for their joint attack, decide they must delay their invasion to give their friends more time. The confusion begins because while the Romulans were at Wartime economy from turn 1 by scenario rule, that special rule ceases to be in effect on Turn 10 and, indeed, there is much more the Romulans can do now that they are an active empire. Fortunately, the Economic Levels rules under the Free Campaign come to the rescue.

(652.211) "The actual combat conditions are not related to the economic level. An empire can be on a Wartime economy (431.4) without attacking another empire or being attacked." There is a bit more about how Limited War is considered wartime status for production in some production cases. But the point here is that it allows the Romulans to continue to be at Wartime economic status, if they wish, even if they don't attack the Federation.

Now there is no specific bit in the scenario saying the Romulans can remain at war, but if they attack the Federation and leave ships in Federation territory, they will fall under (652.25) Required War. Also, since they do fall under the Free Campaign, they are really free to choose their economic level at the start of turn 10. Its kind of a amusing, they could choose to go to peace or even limited war instead of staying at full Wartime. Interesting side note, the Romulans appear to get their Home, West and Patrol detachment released pretty much regardless of whether they attack the Federation or not, but in (603) Federation Limited War Status, sub rule (603.62) Fleets, it limits the Romulans to using the North, Home and Patrol detachment in any war with the Gorn without being at war with the Federation (either because they neither attacked nor were attacked by the Federation). I think this means the West Fleet can move anywhere within Romulan territory and its area is released for basing upgrades and other activities, they just can go attack the Gorn, but you could certainly use them to defend Romulan territory in the north.

So, where does this leave the Federation in this long phony war? The Coalition never HAS to invade, they could just spend their time picking off the Alliance minors with the Federation engaging in limited wars to support them, with limited resources? Doesn't sounds like a winning game for the Alliance.

But after long perusal of the rules and having to push past the assumptions of how things are "supposed to go", I think I found the solution. It comes from a very basic principle. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. But in this case, its a mere matter of the fact that if the Romulans can be a Wartime economic status while not attacking the Federation (or the Gorn, or indeed anyone). Then so can the Federation.

Explicitly, on turn 10 the Federation has this provision: (603.122) "If the Klingons have not attacked the Federation, the Federation can attack the Klingons and go to full Wartime production on Turn #10." Taken within the context of the scenario the mind typically links both of these actions. I can do both or I can do neither, but the Free Campaign rules explicitly state that these actions are not necessarily linked and in the use of the English language the meaning here is potentially ambiguous. It does not state these two actions are explicitly linked, that is only an assumption. In fact, the rule continues "They could, of course, remain on Limited War status until the limits of (652.22)" This is a reference to the Free Campaign's rule that you can only stay at limited War for 4 turns, you must then either go to full Wartime or peace, until ten turns after the star of the first Limited War turn, basically no more than 4 turns of Limited War in any block of 10 turns. It doesn't say anything about then not attacking the Klingons. Of course, if you left ships in Klingon territory you'd be forced into full Wartime on the next turn. But the Free Campaign states that you can stay at Limited War if you don't leave your forces in enemy territory and even gives an example of two empires both waging a limited War never staying in each other's territory (652.25).

Now why is the Federation player concerned about attacking the Klingons? Why not do it and not even have an argument on whether the actions in (603.122) are linked or not? Well the rub is that if the Federation starts a war with the Klingons (or with the Romulans for that matter), then the Gorn will never join the alliance (603.5 Gorn limited war status, amusingly this also provides a scenario in which the Gorn could join the Coalition), unless attack by the Coalition and that is handing the Coalition a huge bonus for being so tardy in their war planning. But given the references to Free Campaign rules and the explicit statements in those rules that combat conditions and economic state are not linked. It just colors the meaning of that sentence in the scenario rule very differently and in a way that is not inconsistent with its literal wording.

Additionally, the Free Campaign rules only allow 4 turns of Limited war before the Federation would have to either declare full Wartime economic status or go back to Peacetime economic status as early as turn 11 if they started limited war at their first opportunity. If the Wartime economic status is actually linked to war the Klingons, the coalition can force the Federation back to peace just by waiting or force the Federation to give up the Gorn completely for the general war. These results would make the game fairly unsatisfying.

Given this, it seems clear to me that the Federation can employ the same tactic as the Romulans on turn 10. Go to wartime economic status and not actually attack anyone. This also has a certain feeling of fair play to it. If the Romulans can do it, why can't the Federation? The only argument is one of two possible interpretations of a single sentence in the scenario rules that has two very valid interpretations (and possibly more, but those are two that I know of) retract this and in counter balance is a pile of examples in the Free Campaign rules that contradict that one interpretation, leaving the other valid interpretation with no contradictions.

Now before anyone yells at me for not looking for additional information on this sequence of events in the Archives. I did do a search and I did find a discussion back in 2008 which covers the Romulan war with no enemy trick, but didn't really discuss the Federation situation in much detail. I found no other pertinent conversations on the issue and if I missed something more recent or more applicable, I apologize, but I did try.

The summary of my conclusion is. The Romulans can stay at war for as long as they like without attacking anyone, if they choose. But the Federation can also choose to go to full wartime economic status and not attack anyone's territory, if they choose. There is no prohibition on operating ships in friendly territory, however, and the Federation will be part of the Alliance, so combat with Coalition ships in friendly territory is allowed and none of this constitutes starting a War with the Klingons or Romulans for the peace of mind for the Gorn Senate.

By all means, discuss...

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, December 06, 2016 - 09:34 am: Edit

There is nothing to stop the Feds from declaring war against the Lyrans, they are fighting in Kzinti space, thus no future restrictions from the Gorns entering. Bring the economy to full war and releases the Home Fleet completely. Then you can start improving some interior defenses, BATS to SB, additional PDUs on planets not in border deployment areas. The outer defense may still be a little brittle, but the interior won't soft. This also allows survey, don't forget to send the CVL's and COV back to 2nd Fleet for survey duty.

Also the Romulans will still hit exhaustion on T15 if they remain on war econ.

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Tuesday, December 06, 2016 - 09:55 am: Edit

Ryan,

I like how you think, but what does "declaring war against the Lyrans" mean? There is no such thing in F&E as a declaration of war step. There is only determination of economic status in which you determine your economic status of peacetime, limited war or full war status and there is no requirement to start against whom or in support of whom, they are just economic status. There is no concept of actual political status, only "combat conditions". I look forward to some kind of political rules being created for the game, but so far as I know its not even on the radar, yet.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, December 06, 2016 - 10:25 am: Edit

There is a difference between the economic status of war and being at war. Look at what's allowed and not allowed in a Limited War (654.1)(654.2). Ending the Limited War against the Lyrans frees the Feds from the restrictions under (654.2).

It's a way to get around the (603.54) restriction of the Federation starting a war with the Klingons or Romulans.

Going to war against the Lyrans allows you to enter Lyran territory.

Also based on reaction to a proposed TACNOTE from 2011(?) the staff has recommended a change in the wording to (603.54) removing the Klingons from the rule. This also brings it into line with the opening paragraph of (654.0)