There is the ruling in the Q&A Archives as well:

---

Quote:

Q: The Kzintis can only have one BCE (escort variant of a battlecruiser, highly desirable for increasing the ComPot of carrier groups) in service at a time (440.7). What if someone captures several Kzinti BCs? They convert them to native technology and want to convert them all to BCEs. Is that legal or would the capturing empire also be limited to having just one BCE in service? Can they sell them back to me?
A: Only standard variants (305.23) can be made from captured ships. A conjectural ship is not a standard variant.

---

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - 08:54 am: Edit

I'm copying this from Q&A:

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.

So, Thomas, with all you've said in mind, the remaining issue is whether the prohibition on conjectural ships applies to unique ships and whether if unique ships may be converted at double cost whether there is a limit to how many are permissible.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - 09:06 am: Edit

I'm not sure if the Gorn DNT is a "double bubble" ship or not because if it were, then it is prohibited under the no "double bubble" captured tech conversions.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - 09:17 am: Edit

On the issue of ships stacked with a friendly SB in friendly territory but cut off from the main supply grid, I was reading the commentary above by Richard. Is the general rule then that ships stacked with a SB in this case are in supply solely for combat if they stay right with the SB? But if they move, they must be paid for with available EPs at the base or else they are out of supply for operational movement, combat, and retrograde?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - 10:48 am: Edit

I think a tad of logic would dictate that only the original race can build 'unique hulls'.

The Kzinti can only ever have 1 BCE....but the Klingons can have any many as they like (or D6E's the other way round). Doesn't make sense.

A unique hull is also not a standard variant - so 305.23 would seem to cover this.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - 11:42 am: Edit

The ruling above says only standard variants can be converted from captured ships.

I don't think you can claim that a ship with number in service limits is 'standard', so no, the Romulans cannot do a DNT, the Kzintis can't do an AD6, the Klingons can't do a BCE, and so on.

I'm not the guy that decides this sort of thing, but I _really_ doubt that you can do this sort of thing.

By Michael Alan Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - 11:52 am: Edit

An empire could not exceed its own limits in using a captured ship, so it would not allow a third drone ship conversion in a single turn for the Klingons for example.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, July 13, 2017 - 03:48 am: Edit

From Q&A:

Q:Does anybody know if a Prime Team on a Survey Ship affects the die roll for a High Risk Survey ?


Ane thing about the rules in the case of a very specific question like this, is to check the rules involved (prime teams and survey). If there is no mention of an affect, then there isn't one. One can also look at prior rulings, using the search function and likely rule numbers, it can be a bit to wade through.

In this case, the rules are clear that it affects the normal survey roll.

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Monday, July 17, 2017 - 01:50 pm: Edit

Jeffrey Tiel asked a question about colocated bases repairing SIDS on one base by the other. To my knowledge there is no provision for a base to repair another base, I think you have to stick the rules on base repair, which only provide from such repairs to occur with the use of a Tug and has certain restrictions.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, July 17, 2017 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Also self-repair for uncrippled SBs (308.85)...

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 - 10:05 am: Edit

On the issue of co-located bases repairing one another . . . (420.421) states the following:

"Two repair facilities in the same system could work on a single large unit."

A large "unit" includes a base to my thinking. What's more, we have to remember that the repair facilities on a base aren't just the machines (that are presumably part of the space docks) but the personnel, which repair crews could be sent over to do all kinds of repair work on other units.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 - 10:19 am: Edit

No. A base cannot repair another base. Even co-located in the same system they are not close enough to do that. Where as 2 BATS or 2 Base Stations co-located would be close enough for a crippled DN to get repairs started by one and finished by the other because it can move from one location to another.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 - 11:10 am: Edit

On the issue of units stacked with a starbase in a partial supply grid being in supply and whether that supply extends to their operational movement, combat, and retrograde in hexes they enter after starting the turn stacked with the starbase, here are the arguments on both sides of the question:

The rules specify that a partial supply grid is a province(s) of friendly space cut off from the main supply grid containing at least one planet or base. Ships starting their turn in said partial supply grid but not stacked with the planet or base must be paid for out of the partial supply grid's generated and/or stored economy. Ships starting their turn in said partial supply grid but stacked with the planet or base are said to be in supply.

The question is what happens if those ships stacked with the planet or starbase move off the planet or starbase? Do they become like the ships which started the turn off said planet or starbase?

The answer would seem to be negative in that they are not like those ships but are in supply for operational movement, combat, and retrograde because of the rules which state that any unit starting the turn in supply for operational movement is also in supply for combat, and further any unit in supply for combat and in combat is in supply for retrograde supposing it can trace a retrograde path to a supply point. Under this interpretation the phrase "stacked with the starbase" should be understood to apply permissively in that it opens those ships to the full latitude of any other unit starting the turn in supply.

On the other hand, the phrase "stacked with the starbase" may be meant to restrictively such that said units are in supply only while actually stacked with the starbase, a condition which must be re-evaluated at every time that supply would become an issue (op movement, combat, etc.). On this interpretation, as soon as ships stacked with a starbase in a partial supply grid move off the starbase hex, they become unsupplied unless their supply is paid for by the partial supply grid. The argument in favor of this interpretation is that the partial supply grid ship support rules would lose most of their force if applied solely to ships/units which began the turn within a partial supply grid and not stacked with a planet or base. On the other hand, the partial supply grid ship support rules do have a limited but nevertheless meaningful scope if the permissive interpretation of the phrase "stacked with the starbase" is used.

So, the question comes down to this: is the phrase "stacked with the starbase" meant permissively or restrictedly? If permissive, then units stacked with a starbase or planet in a friendly partial supply grid are in supply as if they had been paid for within the grid. If restrictive, then units stacked with a starbase or planet in a friendly partial supply grid are in supply only if they remain in the starbase or planet hex (and said starbase isn't destroyed)), and supply must be evaluated for them at every point to ensure that this restriction is maintained.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 - 04:04 pm: Edit

The thing you need to remember is that supply is checked at certain times during the turn for the purpose of certain activities, see all of (410.2).

If you're in a partial grid, and at a SB at the start of the movement phase, you are in supply. You can move, and because you don't reevaluate supply after the start of the phase, you're still in supply.

For combat, supply is evaluated at the start of the turn, and at the moment of combat. If you started at a partial grid SB and moved off of it to attack someone (without entering the main grid in the process), then you are out of supply *at the moment of combat*, but because you were in supply at the beginning of the turn, you are not out of supply *for purposes of combat*.

For retrograde, supply is evaluated at the moment of combat, and at the start of the retrograde phase. So, if you started at a partial grid SB and moved off of it to attack someone, and during and after combat that area is still a partial grid (or even out of the partial grid's range altogether), then you are out of supply at both points, and cannot retrograde. If, however, you retreated into the main grid, or combat ended with supply reestablished into the partial grid (making it part of the main grid), you are in supply, and can retrograde.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 - 04:11 pm: Edit

James Lowry, that was an intriguing analysis. Do you _know_ you are right about this, or is this just your theory on the matter?

I'm in a game resuming tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM, and the Fed Sixth SB is cut off with a large fleet stacked with it. So, we urgently need to know what that fleet can do and what it cannot do vis a vis supply.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Jeffrey, the way I learned it was that without paying for support, you don't have the freighters (or transports) to keep the supply running in your direction so once you leave the base, you're out-of-supply (also note that there is no supply tug mission [except for the one Hydran])...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 - 08:19 pm: Edit

Stew, you might be able to use Mission V. (509.1-V) to supply the ships.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 - 08:29 pm: Edit

Well, I'm far from an expert on the rules, but (410.2) looks very clear to me. Supply is evaluated at certain times. If you're in supply at those points, you're in supply. So anything on the 6th Fleet SB at the start of the turn is in supply at that point, and will be in supply for purposes of movement.

Do note that in supply is just that. Supply. Fighter replacements and the such only happen for free in a main grid. So any fighters you've lost must be paid for, or the carriers will be getting empty.....

And of course, there's paying for out-of-grid supply, which seems to be presumed to last the entire turn, and would therefore allow retrograde movement inside the partial grid.

See:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/32152.html?TuesdayMay2820130959am#POST687496
Especially the four replies starting with Jason Schaff's.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Thursday, July 20, 2017 - 06:52 am: Edit

James, Stewart, and Thomas:

I read the 2013 conversation and see that the same set of different interpretations popped up there but I didn't see any official word from FEDS or FEAR. So, I guess the point by point supply evaluation James references is the best interpretation of the rules, adding the note that Richard made in the 2013 conversation that you cannot pay for supply for ships during the retrograde phase if they end up out of supply (which makes sense anyway, since if they left their starbase without adequate supplies, they'd not suddenly be able to acquire them after combat in a partial supply grid.)

FEDS or FEAR, if there's an official word on this problem somewhere, would you kindly notify us? And if not, perhaps you could weigh in?

Thanks everyone for your help.
Jeff

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Thursday, July 20, 2017 - 06:54 am: Edit

Thomas, 509.1-V appears to apply only to raiders.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, July 20, 2017 - 09:55 am: Edit

Follow the rules and the SOP. Check for supply when the SOP calls for it. Do the ships qualify for in supply at the point called for in the SOP? If not, then they are out of supply. If, at a later point in the turn, the SOP calls for another check for supply, they could be back in supply. Follow the SOP.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 20, 2017 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Comment by Stewart over in Q&A:

---

Quote:

Ted, it's above 15 so 15.5 would place things at level 1 (75%) on Turn 15 (just one of the drawbacks of ADS)... [this matches the excel versions of Economic Forms]

---

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Thursday, July 20, 2017 - 10:41 pm: Edit

The SOP tells you when to check for supply. Rules for the effect of being out of supply for combat, retrograde, etc... tells you the effect of being out of supply at various points in the turn and (410.2) appears to be one of the fairly clear rules written, so I do not see how it could be subject to many interpretations. James' synopsis sounds quite correct.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 11:03 am: Edit

Chuck,

Thanks for the partial answer regarding the CLS and CLG. What are the chances of having a full answer in the next day or so? I actually bought CLVs in the F&E game that is in question, and to move things along I was going to replace the CLVs with CLs and then make a few other adjustments permitted by the opponent. I will go ahead and do that if this question is going to take some time to sort out. However, if an answer is forthcoming fast (day or two) then I'll hold off for now.

Also, the Lyran SIT should be changed for at least for the CLS and CLG to reflect that they are listed in FO2016. Do you want me to report line items for that?

Thanks,
T

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 11:09 am: Edit

Also, quick comment on the Lyran CL question. I checked the history of the CLV specifically in CL#46, and it said that one was built historically, but more could be built. The F&E SITs do not list the CL variants as being conjectural, such as the Lyran BB for example.

I don't know if that matters or not. If the general principle is that an "official" general war game must use units from published F&E products and not from CLs, then that answers the question right there. However, if a unit from a CL is not conjectural and is otherwise not listed as being limited, then I'm not sure why the unit wouldn't be added to the game when published in a CL.

I'll ask that more general question. Anyway, thanks for considering.