Chuck,

Just FYI there are several other questions pending in the Q&A that need addressing.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Tuesday, October 17, 2017 - 03:08 pm: 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.)

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, October 18, 2017 - 08:20 am: Edit

---

Quote:

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.

---

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Friday, October 20, 2017 - 10:04 am: Edit

Are there any "two step"-like conversion/modular add-on discounts for base conversions? For example, if you were on the same turn to convert a Klingon starbase with a single SFG to an X-starbase with a second SFG, would there be any discount on the cost?

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, October 20, 2017 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Nope. Just look at the base conversion chart and there you go.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Saturday, October 21, 2017 - 11:10 am: Edit

Does anyone know if there is a masterlist somewhere in the rules of those ship systems which cease to function if the ship is either unsupplied entirely or adopted as a homeless ship?

FEDS: Not that I am aware of.

This looks like a project to create a new F&E annex...

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, October 21, 2017 - 02:46 pm: Edit

Chuck, thank you for considering my appeal.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, October 23, 2017 - 11:29 am: Edit

Thanks for the stack of nice, clear answers, Chuck!

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, November 13, 2017 - 02:36 am: Edit

Posted here to not clog up the Q&A topic

Not an answer, but it may help

Hydrax Question and retreats.

A battle hex can always be resolved without a successful cloak role or a battle - the defender can retreat 100% of their forces if the attacker permits an uncontested retreat.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Monday, November 13, 2017 - 11:26 am: Edit

The real thing here is there no rule that says 'thou shalt always have at least one round of combat if the defender does not withdraw'. The normal sequence of play is merely constructed so that is what happens.

However, this isn't the normal SOP, but the capital assault sequence, and (511.533) says "If the Defender does not fight at any of the planets, he must retreat from the hex." That implies that there's a way to not fight at any of the planets [chosen by the attacker] and take a free retreat.

This is really meant as a patch to keep a defender from just dodging around an empty capital hex forever. But is the intent for the defender to be able to shift his forces to a system the attacker isn't in, and then retreat, or should "The Defender only has to fight at one such planet", be taken literally?

Because of the normal way things work, the instinct is to say the latter. But if that's the intent, the last sentence of (511.533) has no business being there, and the phrase I just quoted from it above should be 'The Defender must deploy a battle force to at least one such planet', or something similar.

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Monday, November 13, 2017 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Right, I think the blurb about the Defender having to retreat is saying that essentially they have to retreat as part of the previous combat cycle if they don't want to be forced to fight again at least one planet. So removing that last sentence, which I think was ironically meant to clarify the rule, would actually make the rule much clearer.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, November 13, 2017 - 08:22 pm: Edit

I don't think the capital assault rules apply. They would if the Klingons were building or establishing a base and/or PDUs at a given planet or planets. With no fixed base or planet defenses being present or built then the hex should, for all intensive purposes, be treated as an empty hex that requires atleast one round except in the cases of cloaked evasion, a diplomat (540.26), or in the case of the ISC a Pacification Station being placed (544.231).

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Monday, November 13, 2017 - 10:48 pm: Edit

(511.533) Is explicit that the attacker must still put up one or more battle forces at particular planets in the case of a capital with no remaining defenses. Your suggestion would be a reasonable simplification for two people in-play, but it is not RAW.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, November 14, 2017 - 06:43 am: Edit

If you have conquered a capital hex, really any hex, you have 3 choices.

1. Defend it to keep it.
2. Defend it until it becomes untenable.
3. Put up a minimum force to fight the required battle before retreating unless the conditions I mentioned above apply.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, November 16, 2017 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Jeff, I just read your questions over in Q&A.

I urge you to edit them to include rules references. The powers that be would like you to quote the rule you are asking about up front as that helps them answer more quickly. So, like this:

Q503.8: How does......?

"Q" stands for question and the number is the rules reference.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, November 28, 2017 - 04:26 pm: Edit

From Q&A (Stewart Frazier):
"The Lyran SR, when combined with a scout pallet, is limited to 4 EW but its AF (3) is not shown as being affected (reduced to 2 AF), does this also apply if the SR is mated with the PF pallet or space control pallet (remains at 3 AF, tugs are reduced to 2 AF)? "

I think that the rules for scout pods/pallets (317.53) reduce compot per point of EW provided. This is involuntary and cannot reduce the compot of the unit below two. My opinion is that a strict reading of this would mean that ONLY scout pods/pallets cause this effect, and PFT or other pods/pallets with EW ratings do not. (317.53) specfically mentions that Klingon drone pods' EW rating does not affect offensive compot in the above manner.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - 04:26 am: Edit

From Bill Steele (Q&A):

"in 3HN.21 the statement
"unless the final adjusted BIR of the HN armed force is seven or more" is a little confusing. Mainly the statement BIR of the HN armed force. Standard BIR is for both forces, BIR for the HN force could mean attacker BIR + defender BIR + var + die roll. The standard BIR route would make it fairly rare (1 in 6) of ever using the nipper. "

I am no official answer guy, but it was my impression that it is meant to be a rare result without control of both BIRs (ie only slow units or bases) unless the opponent cooperates by selecting a BIR higher than one. That is, you count the Heel Nipper using force's BIR plus the opposing force's BIR plus the modifier from the Variable BIR die roll (and I think any other modifiers that might apply, ie captured ship, variable admirals and so on), and if the total is 7 or higher, you can use the heel nipper if otherwise. I would presume that 'final adjusted BIR' means exactly that, the BIR that is calculated after adding in all adjustments.

I am no official answer guy. Any answers I give are read at the reader's own risk. Ct'ulu p'thagn. YMMV, objects in the mirror may be farther than they appear, the opposite of pro is con; the opposite of progress is congress.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - 10:06 am: Edit

Richard, the presence of a SWAC going wild (518.43) or heavy SWAC (317.3) going wild could also change the final adjusted BIR based on the wording of (518.43). Hence my question about the presence of them going wild and their effect on Carnivon and Paravian battle forces.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - 01:18 pm: Edit

That's a tough one. If I had to decide, which I don't, I might argue that this whole rule is reflecting that heel nippers are short ranged weapons and that only in intense battles do they come into play in a significant way. I might argue that drones/seeking weapons usage or non-usage (ie in this case from SWACs) does not affect this.

Alternatively, a strict interpretation of the rule would require the determination of when in the sequence of play that the adjusted BIR relevant to enabling the usage of heel nippers is calculated, and if SWACs had been accounted for by then, or not, would determine the answer relevant to your concern above.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Which is why we try to playtest things to work out issues like this. We can't foresee every thing that could come up. Hence the Q&A to help.

By Stan Taylor (Stan) on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - 01:44 pm: Edit

EW (other than SWAC) can also cause a BIR shift to one side and not the other. Or Vudar weapons.

I haven't played with them but I see the heel nippers winding up being mostly a threat than a weapon actually used. Opponents will usually stick to BIR 1, possibly 2, to avoid getting mauled. Knowing this still makes the Heel Nippser useful even if they don't get used much. In situations where the opponent wants to get close and direct on a base, or something, the Carnivon has the option to also pick high BIR and make them pay the price.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Yep. You are correct Turtle; this is one reason why I try to encourage people to try playtest material.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - 01:49 pm: Edit

I don't think that EW causes a BIR shift, but rather a combat die roll shift. I am just going off memory here, I could be wrong.

Heel nippers will see more actual use when used against battle forces composed solely of bases and slow units. Nice for use against slow unit retreaters.

I am not an official rules answer guy. Please handle with care. I think so Brain, but what if the Klingons don't like tribbles?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - 02:06 pm: Edit

SWACs going wild cause a BIR shift. There is a difference between a Die Roll Modifier, such as those caused by the EW shift under (313.21) and those caused by a BIR shift like (518.43).

Excerpt of (518.43)

---

Quote:

(518.43) GOING WILD: A SWAC can “go wild” and degrade the ability of the enemy force to use seeking weapons. The effect is to artificially reduce the battle intensity rating of the enemy force as follows:

---

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, December 01, 2017 - 10:49 pm: Edit

Dennis wrote:
>>I have a question on Maulers firing at carrier groups. Can you use the maulers factors at the group as a whole or just at one ship in the group.>>

You can either maul the outermost escort or the group as a whole.

In your example (firing at a group of [CVD, MEC, FKE], which has a total defense of 20), you can destroy the FKE without a mauler for 2(5+3)+2=18; you can shoot the whole group to cripple for 2(20)=40; you can use the mauler to kill the FKE for (5+3)+2=10 (I think? I'm actually not 100% sure of how mauling interacts with the escort bonus...); you can use the mauler to cripple the group for 2(20)=40, but 10 points of mauler hits 10 of the initial 20 defense, so it's 2(10)+10=30.