I think the intent was for the Feds to be able to declare war on the Klingons on Turn #10 in support of the Kzinti (or Tholians if the Klingons attack then on Turn #10), with the Gorns remaining neutral depending on the Romulan war status.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, September 06, 2017 - 07:48 am: Edit

I don't think 'don't attack the Feds and you can keep the Gorn's out of the war' is good for the game

i.e. Turns 1-10 - Lyrans and Klingons destroy Kzinti and Hydrand.

Turn 11+
Romulans Build ships but stay out of the war
Coalition massively overbuild and Keep Alliance off Map.

Federation either goes to full War....and the Rolumans then attack just the Feds - which leaves the Gorns our of the War - or - continue on Limited War and in effect send very limited help to the Kzinti

Coalition captures Tholia (in one turn) .... and with a huge outnumbering (Feds may well have several hundred Ep's - but few ships) Coalition then attacks the Gorns or Federation for the third capital.

I can't see how the Coalition could fail to win (purely due to numbers).

So - yes wording needs to be updated to allow the Gorns to enter the war - if the Romulans do (basically, if the Romulans stay out of the War - so do the Gorns).

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Wednesday, September 06, 2017 - 09:45 am: Edit

This came up in my current setup game on table top. The problem is being at full wartime economy and attacking someone is two entirely different things and economically being at full war does not mean you've attacked anyone. This is demonstrable true in the fact that the Romulans are full economic war the entire beginning of the game and don't attack anyone. The rules state (603.122) that on turn 10, the Federation can "attack the Klingons and go to full Wartime production". These are two separate actions, whether both have to be performed or you get to choose which to perform is ambiguous due to English not being that precise. Is the word "and" here meant as a logic operator that requires both conditions to be true to evaluate as true OR is the word and being used a list operation that merely details a list things than can be done? This is only important because the later rule (603.54) regarding Gorn exclusion states if the Federation "starts a war with the Romulans or Klingons" can only refer to an actual attack and not just going to full Wartime economy, as the economic action involves the violation of no other star empires territory and thus cannot be "with" another star empire. The separation of an actual attack on another star empire and the economic status of full wartime economy is made clearer in the rules regarding economic exhaustion under the Free Campaign rules (652.0) which are in use (as more general rules than the specific scenario rules) with a general war scenario.

As a result, in our game, we have the Federation moving to a full wartime economy without attacking the Klingons or Romulans on turn 10. It seemed like an appropriate action, this way the Federation is able to spend its money on additional production, include advanced rule ships like auxiliaries, etc.... But remains under certain restrictions in regards to unreleased fleets and defenses being built in those areas, no second starbase while not under attack, the only fleet area with additional fortifications is the 4th Fleet.

Either way, the rules need a rewrite to clear up the ambiguity over what happens and what the rules really mean. But they should not be rewritten to increase the confusion over what full wartime economy means versus what attacking means. The two things are not inextricably linked at the moment, lets not write rules that implies that they are and contradicts the structure already in place. The key is to clear up what the Federation is allowed to do and when the Gorn will actually intervene. I think any reference to the Gorn never joining the war unless attacked is a bad idea, just list the situations which will lead to the Gorn joining the Coalition or Alliance and specify when the earliest Gorn attack can be. I mean they do wait 2 full turns after the Romulans attack on Turn 10 to attack on Turn 12. Does that mean that if the Romulans attack on Turn 12 they wait until turn 14? Or will they immediately attack on Turn 12?

My suggestion is to forget about writing rules that exclude the Gorn, instead write the rules that govern their inclusion, its far simpler and less difficult to misinterpret. I cite as my evidence the fact that no one is confused about the rules regarding the Gorn's ability to go to limited war. Its rule about the conditions you need to do something.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Wednesday, September 06, 2017 - 11:10 am: Edit

I don't know/own about the 2010 rules, but in the 2000 set you can only stay at limited war for four turns.

Thus if playing that the Klingons delay past turn 10 and the Feds have a good reason not to declare (Gorn neutrality if they do), then I think you have to read that "and" in the Feds can "attack the Klingons and go to full Wartime production" as allowing two separate options.

They must go to full war or peacetime at some point, that "can" on turn 10 is the only enabling rule to do either that I know of, and the 2010 rules as written obviously contemplate the feds not attacking or being attacked till later than turn 10. It makes no sense to require them to stay at limited war forever.

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Wednesday, September 06, 2017 - 11:55 am: Edit

I just don't like that implied relationship between the Kzinti/Feds/Gorn by the penalty. The Kzinti and Feds have a close relationship, as demonstrated by the commercial convoy (being on the same side) and by the 4th fleet support rule in the Marquis area. The Feds and Gorn have a close relationship as demonstrated by the commercial convoy (being on the same side) and by the 5th fleet support rule in the case of a limited Romulan attack.

My point being the Feds should be able to attack by Turn 10 if not attacked themselves, without penalty for the Gorn - they should read the writing on the wall by that time, and even their political inertia should be overcome after their ally is being pounded for five years. The Four Powers War is recent history...

The Roms can choose to stay out (pending Klingon diplomacy and Treaty of Smarba requirements), which can keep the Gorn non-belligerent, but even then I would think the Gorn would lend a Cavalry-type fleet in support of their Fed ally (and distant Kzinti friend).

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Wednesday, September 06, 2017 - 12:08 pm: Edit

The more I think about it, the more I think the rule for Gorn joining the Alliance at full Wartime economy and being able to attack should be as simple as the Gorn join the alliance on turn 12 if the Romulans have attacked the Federation or any later turn if the Romulans attack the Federation or on turn 20, if they have not already joined the Coalition. The Coalition needs to prosecute and win the war or I have absolutely no pity about them getting crushed by the Alliance.

For that matter when does the Federation get to attack the Gorn? There is plenty of talk in the rules about the Gorn possibly joining the Coalition, but I don't recall seeing a scenario rule saying the Federation may now attack the Gorn. I want to get some payback on those •••• peace lizards!

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Wednesday, September 06, 2017 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Are the Gorn counted as a Coalition capital for purposes of (651.2) if they join the Coalition? As the Alliance player gets to set up the Gorn ships, it might be worthwhile for the Federation to attack the Gorn if they can get one of the other Coalition capitals. Which is potentially an abuse case, but probably not one that will ever come up.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, September 06, 2017 - 12:42 pm: Edit

Sam, the Federation has no good reason to attack the Gorns. Two of the reasons are Diplomatic Allied Trade. 1 EP for each empire for having a Federation diplomat in the Gorn capital, and the Gorn diplomat in the Federation capital, The Gorn-Kzinti ComCon. It can travel safely through the off map areas of all 3 empires in 8 Turns. Thus giving needed EPs to the Kzintis, although the Gorns can use the EPs as well.

Byron, you could, if you choose, flip the Romulans and Gorns in the General War as to who is on which side. All other GW rules remain the same. Just replace Gorn and Romulan for each other as needed.

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Wednesday, September 06, 2017 - 12:57 pm: Edit

If the Gorn aren't part of the Alliance, but the Alliance player can set up their forces, it's possible that the Federation could manage to easily take the capital in two turns (4503 not being in range). Couple that with the Alliance already being ahead - if they could take one of the other capitals without the Gorn, the Gorn capital would be almost free and the Alliance would win. At the least, set up the fleet in 4403 and the Gorn have no chance of defending the shipyard. I don't see anything in the rules about not building PWC (why would you not?) but if the Alliance player wanted to go for attacking the Gorn, that might be a significant portion of the fleet missing.

Or, if you don't want to go for more than one capital hex on the first turn of attacking the Gorn, you could set up the larger ships on their own so that they're vulnerable. You'd cripple the fleet and take out the shipyard - the Romulans would have to scramble to redeploy because the Gorn would almost be a liability with no shipyard and few capital ships.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, September 06, 2017 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Any chance to eliminate abuse is good. I do like where Sam was headed though. I mean if its a choice that is one thing but if its a rules trap that something else. Always good to have choices.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, September 08, 2017 - 06:09 am: Edit

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Thursday, September 07, 2017 - 11:56 pm: Edit

Q501.5: This rule (/its sections) state that fighter replacements happen for free as long as a carrier is 'in supply'. Q&A in CL32 clarified (501.55)'s reference to (413.41) as meaning that any carrier not in a main grid does not receive free fighter replacements (whether 'in supply' or not). However, a ship parked on (say) an allied capital, is in supply (410.25), and is in a main grid--just not its owning empire's. Can such a ship get free fighter replacements? (Or even any fighter replacements at all though the partial grid scheme?)

James, as I read it, only if adopted as a homeless ship. See (410.5).

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, September 08, 2017 - 10:06 am: Edit

---

Quote:

(603.54) If the Federation starts a war with the Romulans or Klingons, the Gorns do not enter the war at all unless somebody attacks the Gorns (and then they join the other side).

---

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, September 08, 2017 - 11:31 am: Edit

I think Rob has the correct interpretation of the intent of the rule, however it's been taking to mean the other way, to include a TacNote so the rule needs to be clarified so people don't make the same mistake.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Friday, September 08, 2017 - 11:38 am: Edit

I am trying to think of a case where the Federation can start a war the Klingons were not involved in. Lyrans invade the Kzinti and the Klingons stay out of it?

It does make sense that if the Federation declared on the Romulans the Gorn might stay out of it.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, September 08, 2017 - 01:36 pm: Edit

I have to agree with Rob - that does make sense (and might explain why for 30 years, the Gorns always end up on the Alliance side, in a General War* game).

* - As far as I can tell, there is no rule which permits any Alliance nation to attack the Gorn - and so the only way the Gorns would join the Coalition is in a non-historical game.

(Just like no Lyran v Klingon, Klingon v Romulan enabling rule).

603.5 does create some other issues.

What happens if the Klingons have attacked the Feds = but the Romulans stay out and so the Gorn go to Limiteed War....

....and the Federation then attacks the Romulans **

** - Other than 603.643 (Gorn limited War),I can't see an enabling rule which allows the Feds to attack the Romulans? (603.122 allows the Feds to attack the Klingons...).

Perhaps we are overcomplicating it, but the issues seem to surround a Coalition player NOT attacking someone (when the rules assume they do) and the Alliance having to do something, which isn't covered in the rules???

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Saturday, September 09, 2017 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Does anyone know if there are any rules that prohibit the Kzintis or the Lyrans early in the war from sending one of their diplomats via an APT (or some other appropriate vehicle) via free strategic/diplomatic movement all the way across the galaxy to the Romulan/Gorn theater to one of the neutral planets in neutral or neutral zone space, AND then using that diplomatic capability to encourage said planet to join their race? Further, assuming this is allowed, said planet would now be outside the main grid if it were successfully enticed. So, it would be able to accumulate wartime EPs from its own economy and "neutral" hex each turn for the owning empire, correct? Further, once a friendly power comes into the war, that planet could be transferred to the ownership of the Gorns/Roms (respectively) and immediately be fully connected to their main economic grid, correct? (Alternatively, could the planet maintain its ownership by the Kzintis or Lyrans, and then friendly tugs run in and take the stored EPs home with them--subject to all the rules limiting the amounts permitted to be sent?) If the planet were transferred in ownership to said friendly power, its PDU's are transferred with it, so would the stored EP's also be transferred en masse to the new owning player (assuming said planet joined that player's main grid)? I'll add that I'm further assuming that an earlier transfer of ownership would deactivate that planet's accumulation of wartime economic EP's because the new owner wasn't at war at the time, so it'd make more sense to transfer ownership--if at all--once the new owner enters a wartime economy.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, September 09, 2017 - 03:17 pm: Edit

(540.25) says the neutral planet must be in a hex adjacent to their races territory.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Sunday, September 10, 2017 - 05:41 am: Edit

Ryan,

Thank you!

Jeff

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Tuesday, September 12, 2017 - 07:07 am: Edit

According to 425.12 "no planet could have more than one such PRD, but several could be built in the same hex at different planets." According to 425.1 "A planetary repair dock can only be built at a planet (as defined in the F&E rules, there are thousands of planets per hex in an astronomical definition.)" Is the intention of this parenthetical to say that more than one planetary repair dock can be built in any planetary hex, since there are thousands of planets in those hexes? Or is the intention just to toss in the off-hand remark that there are thousands of non-F&E-useful planets in any given hex?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, September 12, 2017 - 07:22 am: Edit

Jeffery, I believe it is referring to capital hexes which, except for the minor empires and Tholians, have more than one planet in the hex.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, September 12, 2017 - 08:11 am: Edit

Only one PRD per formal F&E planet or colony.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Tuesday, September 12, 2017 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Thanks Thomas and Thanks Chuck.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, October 02, 2017 - 11:04 am: Edit

From Q+A:
Lyran DND (525.326)

This is listed as a "Unique" ship that can be made for 4EPs by either skipping a DN production slot (so basically subbing it in for the DN) *or* skipping a major conversion slot (essentially trading a major conversion for an extra ship build), but there is no further clarification on what the effect of the "Unique" status is.

A) Can there only ever be one in service at a time?

B) If one is destroyed, can you make a new one?

C) Is it only something you can ever do once, and when the ship is destroyed, it can't ever be replaced?

---------------------------------------------

Ok, so it seems like you can just skip a major conversion one turn, and spend 4EP to make a 6 point destroyer. Which isn't at all a horrible plan once and a while. I mean, yeah, it keeps you from making a second DN or BC that turn (or another mauler), but the extra build slot is always handy. You can also sub a DND for an actual DN build slot, but I can't imagine why you would ever do that (the Lyrans are never low on cash; if you really want to not build the DN, build a CC or CA instead; if you are totally strapped, just make an FF if you are using those rules). But skipping a major conversion once and a while to build an extra DD seems solid. Maybe you wanna convert a CV that turn (Build DN, sub the STT for the CA, use a minor conversion in the capital to make a CA>CV, use the major conversion to build a DND) or something.

So what the question is is how many can you make? The rules say "Unique Ship", which implies only one can exist. But the rules don't really say one way or the other. If you can build a DND every time you want to skip a major conversion, that is significant. If you can build one, ever, that is handy, but not real huge.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Friday, October 13, 2017 - 06:02 am: Edit

I posted this question in Q&A:

The webcaster rules indicate that the webcaster can halve the combat factors of any "unit." I assume that this includes bases?

The difficulty is that Annex (756.0) includes bases under non-ship units, suggesting that bases are units. But then Annex (756.3) specifically creates category definitions and lists several kinds of "units" but specifically places bases in their own category, not as a "unit."

So, when are bases units and when aren't they units? And specifically, are Tholian webcasters able to target bases?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 01:28 pm: Edit

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Drone Bombardment (309.0) and Capital Assault Procedures (511.0)?

If you, as the attacker, assign Drone Bombardment Ships (309.0) to an attacking force in step 5 of the Capital Assault Procedure (511.55), and then no defending ships show up to fight, are you still compelled to use, and thus pay for, the drone bombardment factors?

Example: The Klingons are attacking the Kzinti capital. They assign an attacking force including 3D6Ds for +12 compot to attack an undevastated planet with no PDUs on it. The Kzinti decline to defend the planet. Do the Klingons need to pay 1.2EPs for the drone bombardment, or can they cancel the drone bombardment when the Kzinti decide not to defend the planet?

Peter, you are never required to use Drone Bombardment, just as you never required to use all of the factors available for drone bombardment if you do use it. See (309.32). You can choose to use 0 points of drone bombardment, thus paying nothing.