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?

FEDS RULING:
Unless overruled by ADB, players that build a battle force that includes drone units using bombardment from the support element AND assign EPs for drone bombardment for such bombardment and are required to reveal such assignments and expenditure of EP as required by the sequence of play (105.0) and other rules. A player may not revoke the assignment of any bombardment EPs upon revealing such assignments.

From the SoP (105.0):

---

Quote:

5-3F: Each combat round, players secretly build a battle force allocating such things as:

Elements: warships, scouts, drone bombardment sships and points, rescue tugs, hospital ships, etc.

---

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 07:49 pm: Edit

No, assigning DB ships to a battleforce is not committing them to be used (just that they are available to be used), until that particular system is to be resolved, then they are committed or not...

(309.11) says 'can' not 'must'...

By Jeffrey Hester (D7captain) on Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 04:48 pm: Edit

Are 435.11 and 449.133 separate limits? For instance, could you send an ally 20eps AND transfer some amount to their wyncovia account on the same turn?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, October 16, 2017 - 02:28 am: Edit

Stewart (reply also in Q&A discussions - I suggest we keep our comments there).

309.11 (to me) is giving the option of using a Drone Ship as a Drone Ship rather than a normal warship.

If you use it as a Drone ship - you have made that decision and so it is Drone Ship for that battle round.

If you use it as a Normal ship - it will remain so for that battle round.

What rule allows you to remove a ship from a battle force? (As if it doesn't fire a drone(s), it can't be in drone box)?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, October 16, 2017 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Please remember that this topic is ONLY for player rule questions and official answers from the F&E Q&A Team.

Discussions, opinions, clarifications, and debate about questions belong in the F&E Q&A DISCUSSIONS topic.

Thank you

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, October 16, 2017 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Where is the new rule for infiltration?

Something about each side picking three ships. Where was it published?

FEDS: CL48

---

Quote:

(537.12) INFILTRATION: Once per turn, one resistance movement on one planet can attempt to infiltrate one of the ships (not bases) at the planet's location. (Note that this is one attack per turn not one attack per planet per turn.) The attacker first designates three targets (which must be any three ships with the lowest defense factors) then the defender may (but is not required) designate up to three of the other remaining ships if available (if less than six targets are available then selections are limited to those ships; no selection may be identical). Roll two dice; if the result is an "11" or "12," a ship is destroyed. If the result is a "10," a ship is crippled (a crippled ship would be destroyed). Any other result has no effect. Roll one die to determine which of the designated targets was infiltrated. This cannot attack an unbreakable group such as a convoy, an SAF, or an LTF. This allows one resistance movement per empire.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, October 16, 2017 - 06:30 pm: Edit

Q(537.131) REBELLION: A Kzinti planet goes into rebellion on turn A3. In the subsequent combat phase of turn A3, the Kzinti liberates the planet using space combat, and the Coalition does NOT suppress the rebellion with a marine G unit during the battle. The question is this: Is the planet still in "rebellion" (I.e., the Coalition still has to suppress the G in a subsequent combat phase even though the planet is liberated), or is the rebellion superseded by the liberation? The Coalition player asserts that liberation of the planet supersedes the rebellion, and that a G will no longer need to suppress the rebellion. The Kzinti player asserts that 537.131 says that the planet doe snot produce income until the rebellion is suppressed by marines - and thus the planet remains in rebellion until whatever future turn the Coalition sends in marines to suppress the rebellion. Who is right?

Thank you.

===================================

In order for a rebellion to occur and continue under (537.13), a planet must be in a captured state. When a captured planet is liberated, it no longer has a captor to rebel against. Thus, if a planet is liberated, then it is no longer held by a captor and the conditions for the rebellion no longer exist.

FEDS RULING

Unless overruled by ADB, if a planet is in rebellion under (537.13) and is subsequently liberated before the rebellion is suppressed, then the condition of the rebellion no longer exist and the rebellion is concluded; the owning empire may generate income from the planet as permitted by rule. If the same planet is later captured again, then the prior owner can attempt to put the planet into rebellion anew under (537.13).

Ref Rules:

---

Quote:

(537.13) REBELLION: Each turn, the original owner of each captured planet rolls two dice for each planet. If the result is an "11" or "12" the planet goes into rebellion. Mark it with a Residual Defense Marker. [This rule cannot be used unless Combined Operations is being used.] Captured Neutral Planets roll for rebellion as well.

(537.131) The planet does not produce any income for its captor until the rebellion (represented by the RDU) is suppressed by marines (521.3) in the Combat Phase.

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, October 16, 2017 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Follow up question: By the literal reading of the above rule, *assuming* a liberated planet remains in rebellion, would that mean that the Kzinti player would then have to suppress the rebellion on his own planet to receive EPs?

==============

Rebellion can only happen on enemy-captured, formerly owned planets. A liberated planet by definition is no longer captured; therefore any existing rebellions on a given planet are ended when said planet is liberated.

FEDS SEND

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, October 16, 2017 - 07:37 pm: Edit

Jeffrey Hester asked:

Are 435.11 and 449.133 separate limits? For instance, could you send an ally 20EPs AND transfer some amount to their WYNCOVIA account on the same turn?

=================

FEDS RESPONSE:

Transfers via (435.11) are DIRECT transfers of EPs that MUST be start in the capital of one allied capital then are SENT (435.12) via transport to a receiving allied capital.

Transfers generated by WYN Trade and transferred via WYNCOVIA (499.132) are INDIRECT transfers that DO NOT require the use of capital transfer nodes.

---

Quote:

(449.133) The rules on transporting EPs require them to be picked up from somewhere that has them (at least a partial grid) and deliver them to somewhere that can
receive them (at least a partial grid). A ship could not leave the cluster with EPs and immediately return to the cluster on the next movement point with the same EPs. The EPs must be taken to a grid and unloaded and the ship would then have to load other EPs before returning to the Cluster.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, October 18, 2017 - 02:42 am: Edit

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 10:00 am


(549.11) Can the auxiliaries be built at SBs and major planets (I'd assume so but it's not stated here), could they be built at minor planets and/or STBs (not much of a stretch to allow this)?

FEDS: No - per:

---

Quote:

(431.50) GENERAL: All production is at the capital shipyard unless specifically allowed by other rules.

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, October 18, 2017 - 10:02 am: Edit

Q207.0 If a carrier or PFT launches a fighter or PF strike (319.0) into an adjacent hex, but is in a hex with a base or planet that is considered to be a Strategic Movement Node (204.201), can the carrier use Strategic Movement (204.0) during the strategic movement phase of the current player's turn?

NOTE: (319.0) and (204.0) are silent on the matter, but (319.23) allows the carrier or PFT that launched the fighter or PF strike to retrograde as a partial exception to (206.33).

FEDS RULING:

Unless overruled by ADB, a ship that launches a fighter or PF Strike via (319.0) is deemed to have used its last pulse of OPERATIONAL movement and therefore cannot use strategic movement and/or cannot be assigned to a reserve fleet at the end of the phasing player's current turn.

Rationale:

---

Quote:

(319.21) SEQUENCE OF PLAY: Offensive strikes are conducted by the phasing player as the last pulse of the carrier/tender’s operational movement...

---

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, October 18, 2017 - 06:51 pm: Edit

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 10:00 am

Chuck, (502.92) is in error in that SBs CAN support two F-111 squadrons (it does have two BAM positions available).

FEDS is confused by the reference given -- please resubmit with further details of this issue.

=================

Had forgotten that note, the reference should have been to (527.141) - 'starbase' should have been 'base station' in the first sentence and the second sentence should include 'starbase and' with the 'stellar fortress' (SB and STF).

==============

FEDS: Stellar fortresses and starbases do indeed receive two F-111 squadrons under this rule; sector bases, battle stations, AND base stations receive one squadron. Unless overruled by ADB, the rule should read as follows:

(527.141) Each sector base, battle station, and base station receives one squadron of nine F-111 factors. Each stellar fortress and starbse receives two squadrons of nine factors each. Partial squadrons cannot be deployed (i.e., players cannot deploy a few factors here and a few there) although combat losses and replacements might result in a partial squadron in service.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, October 19, 2017 - 11:06 am: Edit

Chuck, thank you for those answers. As a friendly reminder, I collated the remaining pending questions that need answers - at least the ones I could see. Thank you again for your time, effort, and attention.
================

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, September 05, 2017 - 07:34 am: Edit

Q511.33 During the period an empire is rebuilding its shipyard, does the empire receive the free prime team under (522.1) and can it build one under (522.11) assuming the funds exist?

FEDS RULING:
Unless overruled by ADB, FEDS finds no requirement to have a fully functional shipyard to receive or buy Prime Team. The only requirement is that an empire is at war to receive or buy Prime Teams and that the PLACEMENT of teams be in the capital shipyard HEX per (522.12).

================
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?)

FEDS: You situation you have described is found under Homeless Ships:

---

Quote:

(410.51) HOST SUPPORT: In the case of any ship which must draw supplies from a Supply Grid not connected to its own home territory, the host (allied) empire must pay one-half Economic Point per homeless ship (plus one point per carrier) as a onetime expense to set up production lines to provide supplies and spare parts (including fighters) for that ship. This rule does not require that the adopted ship actually be in the territory of the adopting empire, only that it can draw supplies from that Supply Grid. The owning player (not the adopting player) controls homeless ships. X-ships‡ require a special kind of support (523.14).

(410.511) If this cost is not paid, the homeless ship cannot draw supplies (FEDS: This includes replacement fighters) from the allied Supply Grid. The host need not pay the cost for all homeless ships, at least not all at the same time, and the host player may decide which ships are receiving the available support.

(410.512) Special Federation fighters cannot be provided for homeless ships by an allied empire, so the carriers listed in (302.352) would have their “nominal” fighter strengths.

(410.513) Ships still in supply from their home territory cannot be declared homeless and cannot be adopted as Homeless Ships by an ally. Ships cannot be adopted unless they are in supply from the adopting empire.

---

---

Quote:

(203.50) GENERAL: While a player may move his units into a hex containing enemy units, the player cannot move units out of a hex containing enemy units unless there are a number of friendly ships remaining in that hex equal to the number of enemy ships.

(203.501) The pinning calculation is repeated every time more ships and other units enter the hex, so partial fighter squadrons on ships that arrived separately could be combined.

(203.502) This rule requires leaving ships behind equal to the enemy, so a single non-fast ship [fast ships‡, see (525.1) in Advanced Operations] can pin a single fast ship because the fast ship cannot leave half of itself behind in the hex.

---

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, October 20, 2017 - 04:10 pm: Edit

(600.322) states that an inactive fleet without a starbase could send a ship out of it's deployment area to the nearest friendly starbase to be converted. If you wanted to perform a major conversion of a ship could you move the ship (even if it has a SB in it's deployment area) to the capital to be converted?

FEDS: The intent of (600.322) is to provide a method for an inactive fleet without a starbase to convert its fleet's ships. Further, if any inactive fleet wanted to perform a major conversion upon one of its ships, then the only way to do so is to send the ship to the capital/shipyard hex because all major conversions MUST be made in the capital/shipyard hex per (433.17). This includes all inactive fleets because even if they possess their own starbase, said starbase may be incapable of performing major conversions. Indeed, this is also required if an inactive fleet wishes to convert a ship to a CVA or SCS as such conversions MUST be performed at the capital/shipyard hex per (433.45) and (515.524).

FEDS RULING: Unless overruled by ADB, any inactive fleet may send one ship per turn to the capital/shipyard to perform a major conversion or CVS/SCS conversion under the provisions of (600.322).

References:

---

Quote:

(433.17) MAJOR CONVERSION LIMITS: No starbase can make more than one large (4+ point) conversion per turn, and all large conversions must be made in the capital/shipyard hex. Extra conversions under (433.16) and (433.15) are subject to all rules. This may require building extra starbases.

(433.45) ...CVA and SCS ships can only be produced (including conversions) in a capital shipyard...

(515.524) CVAs cannot be produced outside of a working capital shipyard hex. This includes conversions and new construction. There is an exception for the Romulans in (433.45). The Hydran Guild shipyard is not a capital shipyard.

---

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Saturday, October 21, 2017 - 11:09 am: Edit

Does (523.222) in saying that x ships "accompanied by uncrippled X-scouts" imply that only x-scout ships rather than also including x-bases can activate the x-reserve-reaction option? Because under the reaction rules for normal ships, bases with their scout capability enable the extended reaction range for normal reaction movement. However, the phrase "accompanied by" isn't clear in the X-Reserve-Reaction rule as to whether it means "initially accompanied by" (as in sitting with an X-base) or "continued to be accompanied by" (as in traveling with the x-fleet as it moves out of the hex (which the x-base cannot do, then requiring that the X-scout be solely a ship.)

FEDS:
Clearly an x-base (with scout diamond) is an x-scout. The term "accompany" means that that the x-scout must be co-located with the x-ships at the time of the detection that enables the reactions by x-ships. Just as scouts accompanying other units enable their extended reaction; so to does a co-located x-scout allow other x-ships to react to reserve movement.

FEDS RULING:
Unless overruled by ADB, any x-scout (to include x-bases with a scout diamond) that accompany other x-ships in a hex, enable eligible x-ships to react one hex to the movement of reserve fleets as allowed by rule (523.222). It is not required that the x-scout react with the x-ships that reacted to the reserve movement.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, October 21, 2017 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Note that in the 2nd question above (involving crippled ships in a capital assault), it is asked if the crippled CC _assigned to Vronkett_ is able to use an FRD at Kzintai. You answer yes (sorta), but obviously in your answer it cannot. The answer might be better with some rephrasing.

FEDS: Fixed.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, October 26, 2017 - 09:13 pm: Edit

When dealing with Transports (Tugs, Light Tactical Transports (LTT), and Theater Transports (TT)) make sure you read (509.0) in whole. It replaces all other rules on them and is a comprehensive rule for their use.

FEDS: Concurs.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, October 26, 2017 - 10:14 pm: Edit

Fixed

By Jeffrey Hester (D7captain) on Friday, October 27, 2017 - 04:50 pm: Edit

But FEAR, if your question deals specifically with Theatre Transports, and you look in the index, it points you to 539.7, which seems to have specific rules for TT. I thought specific rules override general ones?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, October 27, 2017 - 05:05 pm: Edit

See the CL43 erratta.

Q: Did the ability of theater transports (TTs) change in F&E 2010 in so far as how they carry PDUs? Rule (539.72) of Strategic Operations states that a single theater transport can carry and deploy one PDU.
A: Changes were made! In F&E 2010 many previous rules were consolidated, updated, and even changed. Under (509.1-K1) groups of three theater transports can deliver a PDU (509.22). A re-study of the engineering showed that no single theater transport could manage the delivery and installation of a PDU.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, October 31, 2017 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Hmmmm, can the Lyran CW/DW minor shipyards build DD/FF in their place?

If yes, could they then build DDX/FFX?

===============

From CL30, page 84:

---

Quote:

There is nothing in (450.12) to stop a Conversion Facility from making a double conversion, nor is there anything stopping you from using (450.4) to produce a Lyran DD in a Lyran CW shipyard.

---

---

Quote:

(450.18) Variants: Minor shipyards can build any ship of the base hull type defined (within the availability schedule of the type, including X-variants), but cannot do substitutions of other hull types...

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, November 04, 2017 - 09:42 am: Edit

Q511.0 If the Vudar capital in 1619 is devastated and no Vudar units remain in the hex either by destruction or retreat can the Vudar begin construction of replacement shipyard or medium shipyard (450.2) in the Hole for non-historical scenarios? (547.13) is unclear on what happens to the capital shipyard and the repair depot (424.0) under such circumstances.

FEDS: Under the current rules, no enemy can capture the Vudar capital per (547.13), so the questions are moot. If the Vudar capital cannot be captured, then the shipyard and repair depot cannot be destroyed, thus they remain even if no Vudar units remain in the hex. Consider this an effect of the intense radiation zone.

---

Quote:

(547.13) VUDAR HOMEWORLD: Vudar Prime is treated as a major planet that can be devastated but not captured due to radiation hazards.

(511.35) DESTROYING THE SHIPYARD: The only way to destroy the shipyard is to capture the entire hex which contains it. Simply devastating the capital planet or all of the planets in its system will not capture the hex.

(424.13) Location: All depots are in the Capital Shipyard except the Kzinti, Lyran, Hydran, and ISC depots, which are in their respective off-map areas. If the hex containing the depot is captured by the enemy, the depot is destroyed along with all ships in it; there are no salvage points. A new depot is created with the replacement Capital Shipyard.

---

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Saturday, November 04, 2017 - 11:02 am: Edit

(546.7) requires that the Tholians return to their space in the Fall of 182 but does not impose a 10 EP per ship fine on the Alliance.

(604.151-152) restrictions and fines (post turn 28) go into effect "if the Tholians have not been attacked by Turn #22".

(503.34) permits the Tholians to join the side that didn't "invade" it. (503.32) defines "invade" as the destruction of a Tholian base within the Holdfast's original space (not the detached fleet base, per (604.151).

With these rules in mind, here's the question:

If the Coalition invades Tholian space (and destroys at least one base) _after_ Turn 22 _and_ after the Tholians have left their own space and invaded Coalition territory/destroyed Coalition forces outside the Holdfast (for this question I'm assuming these mean the same thing), do the limited partnership provisions of (604.15) remain in effect or is (604.15) replaced by (503.34)?

Part of the issue here is whether (604.15) supersedes (503.34). In practical terms under either (503.34) or (604.15), the Tholians are required to return to their space by the same Seltorian deadline. So, the central issue here pertains to the 10 EP fine per Tholian ship outside Tholian Space after that return deadline is reached. If only (503.34) is in effect and the Tholians have joined the Alliance, then the "limited partnership" of (604.15) with its Alliance fine would not be in effect.

The argument in favor of reading (604.15) as superseding is this:

If the Tholians attack the Coalition on Turn 22 or later, it's the Tholians who invaded Coalition space. A Klingon counterattack and conquest of Tholian space wouldn't seem to be an unprovoked invasion that would activate a full Tholian alliance with the Alliance. Thus, once the Tholians act and invade on the basis of (604.15), they reap the consequences both of their invasion and of the 10 EP per ship fine once the deadline hits. Note that while (604.15) is a limited partnership, it is not a case of limited war such as the situation where the Federation is at limited war and can fight Klingon units in Kzinti space but the Klingons cannot invade Fed space, for in this case, the Feds cannot invade Klingon space either. In every case of invasion in F&E, the invaded player can go to full war against the invader including entering his space and capturing his planets. So, if the Tholians under the terms of the limited partnership are counter-invaded by the Coalition, they should have considered that before going to war with their neighbors and the provisions of the limited partnership under which alone they are allowed to take aggressive action should be upheld. Finally, (604.151) mentions the situation where the Coalition "invades Tholian territory" but only insofar as this affects the status of the Capital for Victory.

The argument for (503.34) being superseding is this:

The limited partnership of (604.15) is a less than full member of the alliance relationship, so (503.34) seems to be the more general rule. There's nothing in (604.15) that conceives of the Coalition as doing anything more than defending itself in its own space against Tholian limited partnership invasion, except for the line about the Tholian capital counting for victory only if Tholian space is invaded by the Coalition (this condition may suggest that a full alliance is still possible if the Klingons were to attack Tholia). Thus, there's nothing in (604.15) that supersedes the specific full alliance relationship of (503.34) that is triggered solely by the invasion of Tholian Holdfast territory and the destruction of a base. Hence, even if the Limited Partnership of (604.15) is ongoing, if the Coalition counter-attacks _and_ invades Tholian space (destroying a base), then the Limited Partnership (and its restrictions) is superseded by the full alliance and the ten EP fine for Tholian ships remaining outside of Tholian space by the Seltorian deadline is obviated.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, November 05, 2017 - 12:11 pm: Edit

FEDS REQUEST:

Please use clear language with the rule references as it makes it very difficult to follow the issue at hand without them. This request also includes the mixing of time references; Y1xx verses Turn #xx.

Example: In light of (abc.0) does (qrs.0) supersede (xyz.0) on Turn #24 or does (efg.0) forestal (hjk.0) in the spring of Y182.

When I get questions that are difficult to follow because of how they are written, I place them low on the priority list to answer.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Monday, November 06, 2017 - 08:59 am: Edit

Chuck:

Sorry to be confusing. The mixing of years with turns is due to the fact that the quoted rules do this.

As to the format of my question, I began with the relevant rules, then offered the question, then explained it and offered what I took to be the competing arguments for interpretation. I'll provide just the precise rule question here:

If the Coalition invades Tholian space (and destroys at least one base) _after_ Turn 22 _and_ after the Tholians have under the terms of the limited partnership of (604.15) left their own space and invaded Coalition territory, do the limited partnership provisions of (604.15) remain in effect or does the Coalition counter invasion activate the full partnership/alliance of (503.34)?