Archive through July 13, 2017
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A:
Archive through July 13, 2017
The CVBG rule (502.92) (two eligible carrier groups forming a super-group) and the (502.93) FIGHTER LIMIT rule are mutually exclusive. One does not need a CVBG too get the fourth fighter squadron.
To be clear, the Federation Third Way has the following extracted effects that are mutually exclusive of each other:
(502.91) BASES: The Federation doubles the fighter complement on its bases and PDUs. (If using FO, under (527.141) each starbase, sector base, and battle station receives one squadron of nine F-111 factors. Each stellar fortress receives two squadrons of nine factors each.
(502.92) CVBGs
(502.93) FIGHTER LIMIT: The Federation is able (starting in Y181) to deploy four fighter squadrons in a Battle Force.
(502.94) ESCORTS: Starting in Y181, every Federation carrier escort (except FFEs and FBEs) has one factor of “spare fighters” (i.e. a mini-FCR)
(502.95) SPECIAL FIGHTERS
(502.951) The Federation player may (in Spring Y171) designate three starbases or sector bases to each have a squadron of F-14s based there. This gives these starbases two extra fighter factors.
(502.952) The Federation player may designate three planets to each have one squadron of F-15s based there; this gives each of these planets two extra fighter factors.
I keep forget about using SWACs, yes, you can totally put two separate CVA groups up in a battle force and use a SWAC to control the 3 factors or use an E3 to control 6 factors beyond the normal 3 squadrons prior to Y181. You could also put up an SCS and a CVA is separate groups and use a SWAC to control extra factors over the 4 squadrons Y181 and after.
ANSWERED AND MOVED BY FEDS
Can off map survey ships that rolled for survey provinces at the beginning of the player turn be designated as an off map reserve fleet during the reserve establishment phase of that same player turn? If yes, then, if that reserve fleet was never activated (such that the survey ships remained off-map until the following same-player turn), can the player on his subsequent phasing turn roll those ships for surveying new provinces?
FEDS RULING:
No, unless otherwise overruled by ADB. There are essentially two portions of an empire's off-map region; the established off-map area and the off-map survey duty area. Reserves are deployed within the established off-map area and cannot be established within the survey duty area.
From the Master SoP:
Quote:1B1: Assign survey ships in the off-map area to the survey duty in survey area (542.21).
1B2: Remove survey ships from survey duty to the off-map area; ships removed from survey duty cannot be moved for the remainder of the turn (542.32).
1B3: Conduct off-map survey as permitted
Under the two exceptions for Reserve movement, a reserve fleet may conclude its movement in a hex containing only enemy units if doing so would open a supply path to ships in combat during this combat phase.
I have questions about two possible cases. In the first, I assume that the reserve fleet cannot enter a hex containing enemy units solely to open a supply path and thus reconnect a partial supply grid to the main grid. Is that correct?
In the second, if ships are being supplied solely by a partial supply grid, could a reserve fleet be dispatched to open those ships up to the main supply grid (a) if all of said partial supply grid supplied ships are supplied by said partial supply gird and/or (b) if only some or none of said partial supply grid supplied ships are (or are not) supplied by said partial supply grid?
I'm envisaging a tactic for 2b of the above where a player sends a breakout fleet from a partial supply grid containing some units that he does not supply with said grid (suffering the movement and combat consequences of doing so). Then if those units are attacked on the enemy phasing turn, he sends a reserve fleet to another hex that the enemy is using to block supply paths between the main grids, using the reserve movement legally to open a supply path to the (at least) one out of supply ship under attack but secondarily also reconnecting the two grids by destroying the frigate or whatever that is blocking the supply path.
302.742 Slow unit retreat caused many questions and I don't have a copy of CL51 handy to know for certain if my question is clarified there, so please bear with me.
The main question is that. 2 forces are fighting at a planet, the defender owns the planet, the attacker is trying to take it, but decides to offer an approach. After declining the approach, the attacker retreats. The defender also wishes to retreat, but also wishes to attack the attacker's slow units during slow unit retreat. The main question is can the defender attack the slow units AND retreat?
The argument for yes is that the slow unit retreat battle round is not a pursuit-battle round. That's in part B. Also Slow unit retreat, as a rule, is under the Retreat section of the rules.
The argument for no is that the player trying to kill the slow units is referred to as "The pursuing player" thats in section A. The slow unit battle is resolved in the sequence of play within the Pursuit phase.
Now, personally, I think the weight of evidence favors, slightly, the No side. Ryan Opel, whose opinion I respect, falls on that side, but it would be nice to get a FEAR or FEDS ruling on the matter in that nice colored text. 
Question on GEDS and attacking a whole carrier group at once:
If you target a whole carrier group at once with direct damage, do the escorts still count as getting the escort bonus? i.e. if one is attacking a Gorn [CV, CLE, BDE] group, does it take (8+8+6=22x2=) 44 damage to cripple the whole group, or (8+8+2+6+2=26x2=) 52 damage to cripple the whole group?
(308.101) "A player retains the option to use directed damage against the entire group rather than using these rules...If using directed damage to cripple a carrier group with GEDS damage, the attacker needs enough points to cripple all uncrippled ships;"
(308.111) "To cripple an escort by directed damage requires a number of damage points equal to twice the escort's defense factor, plus one point for each escort in the group (including the escort under attack)."
I think the key phrase in (308.101) is "rather than using these rules"
If you cripple/destroy the group as a whole, you don't use the GEDS rules, so you don't apply the escort bonus. Just use the group total defense values straight up.
I always believed this was the case, as the counters existed with printed factors, and the results of GEDS steps being scored originally required the CEDS system to resolve the GEDS effects on the group counter. However, it does seem to hinge on thr phrase pointed out by Nick Blank.
I do know that the extra damage needed to cripple an escort is NOT doubled, unlike the scout self-defense jamming bonus though, so it would be at most (8+8+6)x2+2+2=48 damage in this case. My money is still on 44 damage to cripple the listed carrier group.
Here's a quickie, what does a Klingon DWA roll as on the Stasis Success table, as a D5A or D7A?
FEDS: Unless overruled by ADB, use the SFG charts of the D7A. Rationale: The DWA is a full sized heavy cruiser just as the D7A.
D7A lines, its bigger than the D5...
Q443.3 (Fighter Storage Depots). This rule states "Each module costs six EPs. Each race can buy one such depot per turn, but cannot buy FSDs prior to Y172. Depots can be installed on any base within the Main Supply Grid and do not require a tug or other ship to deliver them."
Is it legal for the Klingons (specifically) to build a FSD on a Lyran starbase (specifically) assuming that the Lyran starbase is located within the Klingon main grid?
Example, the Lyrans build a SB in hex 1407. This hex is within 6 hexes of the Klingon capital, and thus "within" the Klingon main supply grid. Lyrans and Klingons use their fighters interchangeably.
Thus, it stands to reason that the Klingons may install a Klingon FSD on the Lyran SB.
Ruling is appreciated, thank you.
Q547.13 What happens to ships in the Vudar Depot if all defending Vudar units retreat to the hole or are destroyed in combat in a non-historical scenario? Same question for the Vudar shipyard.
FEDS: In historical scenarios, any ships that remain in the repair depot are destroyed when the capital is captured.
In non-historical scenarios, it should be assumed that the repair depot would itself be in the hole for preservation; see specific scenario rules.
I have several off-map areas questions:
1. The rules on off map areas state that allied off map areas can never "connect," meaning, I take it, that if the Kzintis were to deploy a MB in the Federation off-map area that that MB would not be connected as part of the supply network for the Kzintis. Is this correct?
2. A benefit from deploying said MB in Fed space would be to enable strategic movement for Kzinti ships between off map areas that would not require also using up Federation strategic movement points. Is this correct?
3. Once the Kzintis deploy said MB in the Fed off-map area, if their ships begin the turn on said base, they are all in-supply because they are beginning the turn on a base. Is this correct?
4. The Kzintis may enter Fed space still in supply from their off-map base so long as they don't extend beyond the appropriate hex range. Is this correct?
5. The Kzintis engaging in combat in Fed space having begun on their base are in supply both for combat and for retrograde back to their base. Is this correct?
6. The Kzintis receive replacement fighters upon returning to their base after retrograde. Is this correct?
7. If the Kzintis left ships in Fed space at the end of the turn, would they be in supply? Or would supply require the availability of EPs at the MB?
Thanks,
Jeff
===========
Jeffrey:
Please note that all these questions are moot since an allied empire CANNOT build bases in another allied player's off-map area.
Quote:(433.412) Permission from the host player is required before a base can be built in allied territory. Such a base would facilitate supply, allow Strategic Movement, and repair ships. This could be in the same hex as a host country base; see (433.411). Also see (510.13). Bases cannot be built in allied off-map areas. Also see (652.12).
ANSWERED AND MOVED BY FEDS
REF: Fighter Depots added to Another Empire's Base
Quote:(445.0) FIGHTER STORAGE DEPOTS
While all bases provided support for ships in their sector, bases in key sectors could be reinforced or enhanced with various additional abilities. One of these was to stockpile spare fighters at the base. What was actually happening was that a supply line was set up to stockpile spare fighters in the base’s cargo holds.—Craig Tenhoff
(445.1) FIGHTER DEPOT DEPLOYMENT
(445.11) ALLOCATION: Each empire can deploy two such depots (total, at any given time). The Federation and Klingons can deploy four (total, at any given time). The presence of modules (441.4) and depots are independent and do not count against each other. A starbase, stellar fortress, or sector base can have two such depots added at the stated cost. A battle station or base station can have one. PDUs, OPBs, colony bases, and MBs cannot have fighter support depots. The X-technology version of any given base has the same limits as the non-X version.
Is there any precedence for adding a foreign structure on another player's base? I can't think of one.
Can a Klingon FSD send fighters to support a Lyran carrier? YES -- just like any Klingon FCR could send its fighters to support a Lyran carrier.
Can a Klingon player add a Klingon modules to a Lyran base? NO - there is no enabling rule.
Can a Klingon player add an FSD to a Lyran base? NO - there is no enabling rule.
Unless overruled by ADB, support depots can only be added to bases of the same empire.
FEDS SENDS
Q319.0 A Base has sent it's fighters into an adjacent hex to conduct an offensive fighter strike under the rules. Can a SAV use it's fighters to replace any fighters lost by the base in question should combat last more than one round? SAVs are prohibited from conducting offensive fighter strikes under (319.13). They are not prohibited from transferring their fighters to another carrier or base in the same hex as combat loses under (501.61) and (513.1). See also (445.21) regarding FSDs and FCRs (526.31).
FEDS RULING: YES -- unless otherwise overruled by ADB.
Quote:(501.61) BETWEEN ROUNDS: Ships and bases of the same empire in the same hex can transfer fighters between each other between Combat Rounds as long as the receiving unit has the capacity to hold the fighters.
I wanted to confirm that I understand the relationship between 410.4 and 410.54 and 413.1-2. If a base is cut off but in a partial supply grid, then the ships stacked with that base are in supply without drawing on whatever EPs are generated by the grid (or stored on the base). Do the requirements of 413.1 kick in if the ships leave the hex and are not present inside the base hex at the beginning of the next economic phase? (I assume that if they leave operationally, engage in combat, and then retrograde back to the base, they are in supply for all purposes of movement and combat and replacement fighters.) And, since 410.54 specifies that a base positioned in enemy territory that is cut off is itself in supply but cannot supply ships (stacked with it as well?), then such a base even if in a "partial supply grid" (in the sense that maybe the location where the base is supplies some limited EP) isn't actually in a real partial supply grid at all because such grids depend upon friendly territory? But such a base could supply ships at the 413.1 rate, assuming EP's were generated nearby or stored there? Finally, long term capture wouldn't change the "enemy" status of the cut off base, but only annexation? The point being, I assume, that partial supply grids only work in friendly territory at all because the territory is friendly and trying to help.
Is it permissible for races which capture ships to convert said captured ships into special one-off enemy units? For example, could the Klingons convert a captured Fed CA into the one time CAD?
Quote:(305.45) CONVERSIONS: It can be converted to anything the original owner could convert it to, except a mauler, tug, or carrier.
FEDS RULING: Unless overruled by ADB, the captured ship can be converted under (305.45) but any restrictions that applied to the original empire also apply to the captor including in-service limits.
Offhand, I'd say no, after all, the Feds can't convert a D6 to a mauler unless it was a D6M to start with...
Stewart, are there any other examples? Mauler tech is unavailable to the alliance across the board, while drone tech is known to both Feds and Klingons, so turning a Fed ship into a drone ship shouldn't be a problem under normal circumstances. The issue here is those unique ships. 305.231 appears to allow blanket conversions into ships of the original owner (barring specific prohibitions like maulers). I'm trying to figure out if there a rule somewhere that prevents unique ship conversions. Another example would be if the Romulans captured a Gorn DN, could they convert it into a Gorn DNT? Roms have plasma R tech, so it wouldn't pose an incomprehensible tech problem such as maulers.
According to (413.42) a starbase within a partial supply grid supplies units "within its own hex." Does this mean that if a ship wishes to employ operational movement to leave that SB hex, it loses supply as soon as it starts movement and is thereby treated as out of supply for (a) the rest of its movement, and/or (b) combat, and/or (c) retrograde?
Jeffrey, it's why I said 'offhand'. Unique, one-of-a-kind ships are hard to judge. I'm sure that if the Klingon really wanted to, they could rebuild it into a functional CAD [BTW (305.45) yes you can, just at twice the price].
Does anybody know if a Prime Team on a Survey Ship affects the die roll for a High Risk Survey ?
No, Prime Teams only affect the survey roll for standard survey points. See (522.44).
FEDS CONCURS.