Q511.321 Request for clarification:

Turns #4 and #6 list Production as: One RN, LN, or HN respectively.

Does this mean that the Hydrans can produce one RN, and one LN or HN or just one of the three listed on the given turn?

Unless overruled by ADB, read (511.321) as follows:

Turns #4 and #6 production as either: one RN -OR- one LN -OR- one HN per turn

FEDS SENDS

By Charles Popp (Captnchuck67) on Saturday, April 07, 2018 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Okay,
I am playing an opponent. He wants to send 75% of the Hydran fleet via retrograde after a battle around
1010 to Kzinti space to reach Fed Space. Looking at the rules he can I see only maintain 24 ship via expeditionary and lost ship. but the way in and intself seems very gamy as he has a valid retreat and retrograde path back to Hydran space and sending that much of the Fleet to try and break through will if it is stopped leave Hydran space naked.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, April 07, 2018 - 05:41 pm: Edit

CP: What is your rule question?

By Charles Popp (Captnchuck67) on Saturday, April 07, 2018 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Can he retreat/retrograde like that ?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, April 07, 2018 - 07:12 pm: Edit

It looks like more information may be needed here...

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, April 07, 2018 - 08:34 pm: Edit

CP: We are going to need more information and details on the situation to help you. What rule number is in question? What rule do you think is being violated?

By Charles Popp (Captnchuck67) on Sunday, April 08, 2018 - 09:15 am: Edit

Okay,
A mixed Hydran Kzinti Fleet in the area of 1010. Retreats,He wants to retreat the Hydrans away from their supply grid and toward the Kzinti one.that seems to be a violation of 302.733 for the Hydrans.
It is to me not so much an outright violation of the letter of the rules but a gaming of them,add to the fact he wants to send 24 ships of the Hydran fleet and to set up the suppuly situation for them the Hydrans will not have a route to send supplies, The Kzin will be negative to set it up .

By Charles Popp (Captnchuck67) on Sunday, April 08, 2018 - 10:17 am: Edit

Never mind,this will not happen as the Kzinti will never make it to the party.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, April 13, 2018 - 06:17 pm: Edit

*URGENT*

Q302.321. Do carrier groups in the support echelon sending fighters to the battle line count toward determining the 50% of total ships required to be of the same race as the flagship in the battle force?

Note that DB ships in the support echelon do count towards the requirement. Note also that rule 302.351 appears to offer contradictory insight, indicating in the first sentence that the carrier sending fighters forward is not part of the battle force - BUT - can be directed at 3:1 under 302.563, and thus appear to actually be *in* the overall battle force - just not in the battle line under the command of the flagship.

There is also a reference that rescue tugs are considered part of the overall battle force.

In any case, because 302.321 is not explicit, we need a ruling whether or not carrier groups in the support echelon count (just like DB ships) towards satisfying the 50% "same empire as the flagship" requirement.

A battle is under way in which this question came up. Therefore, a quick ruling is respectfully requested.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, April 13, 2018 - 06:46 pm: Edit

Q302.321. Do carrier groups in the support echelon sending fighters to the battle line count toward determining the 50% of total ships required to be of the same race as the flagship in the battle force?

Note that DB ships in the support echelon do count towards the requirement. Note also that rule 302.351 appears to offer contradictory insight, indicating in the first sentence that the carrier sending fighters forward is not part of the battle force - BUT - can be directed at 3:1 under 302.563, and thus appear to actually be *in* the overall battle force - just not in the battle line under the command of the flagship.

There is also a reference that rescue tugs are considered part of the overall battle force.

In any case, because 302.321 is not explicit, we need a ruling whether or not carrier groups in the support echelon count (just like DB ships) towards satisfying the 50% "same empire as the flagship" requirement.

A302.321 - Per (302.563) which specifically says that the support Echelon is outside the Battle Force and per (302.35) which further supports that they are "not part of the Battle Force" as such, they do not count against the Battle Force requirement of ships, although, since the fighter equivalents in the Battle Force would. This is the general rule.

Other units in the Support Echelon (Drone ships, Scouts, etc.) (302.321) have specific rules which do count them as part of the Battle Force, carriers and escorts feeding fighters into the Battle Force do not have those specific rules. The specific rule, in this case, does not overrule the general. As such, the general rule of "not part of the Battle Force" holds. -FEAR

FEDS Concurs.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, April 13, 2018 - 10:10 pm: Edit

Thank you for the fast ruling!

By Sören Klein (Ogdrklein) on Sunday, April 29, 2018 - 10:36 am: Edit

Hello, everyone!

I'm in the midst of a game with a friend which reached Y183 (We started with the Maelstrom scenario) and we like to ask some question on the cost of certain units late in this war.

Q508.31 Construction cost of Federation PDUs after adopting the Third Way:

According to the SIT a standard PDU costs 4 EP + 3 EP more for the 6 fighter factors on a 0.5 EP basis.
After adopting the Third Way, the Federation PDUs double their fighter compliments but we are unsure about the cost as the SIT does not mention the cost of PDUs after introducing the Third Way.

502.91 says Starfleet has to pay 0.5 EP for each fighter factor on any converted or build PDU.
527.14 says PDUs double their number of fighters at no cost as they don't use F-111s. This seems contradictory to 502.91.
Now we do not know what to pay for a newly constructed PDU which came with double fighter factors right out of the factory.
Do we have pay 4 EP + 6 EP for 12 fighters as we have to buy double the number of fighters?
Or is rule 527.14 specifically overruling 502.91 and we still only pay 4 EP + 3 EP for 12 fighters?

FEDS Answer:
On and after Y181S (turn #26) the new construction cost of Federation GROUND bases with doubled fighters increases as follows:

Built at Shipyard: 4+6
Self-Generated: 5+6
Upgrade: 7+6

Use the designator " PDU+ " for Federation PDUs with doubled fighters.

Note that Fed PDUs cannot use F-111s per (527.14).

Q302.25 regarding the conversion of captured carriers to combat duty:

During one of the more embarassing fails of mine on the klingon front my friend managed to snatch my crippled DVA carrier with his commandos during pursuit.
He is now rejoycing the prospect of adding a new heavy carrier to his forces and we had an argument on the conversion costs of captured carriers.
So what would be the cost for him converting MY precious DVA carrier to his service? Does he has to pay for the fighters as well or does the fighter annuity transfers to him when he converts the captured carrier for his service?
According to ...
… 423.21 each Fighter factor on a carrier costs 2 EP.
… 305.23 captured ships can be fitted for combat duty paying 3 EP but it does not make any mention whether or not one has to pay for the fighters on captured carriers.

FEDS Answer:

Per (305.23) captured carriers are simply fitted for combat duty paying 3 EP (plus the cost of repair).

Our guess so far is:
Yes, he has to pay for the fighters as it - except for being a huge boost his economy, his combat power and his ego - would not make much sense otherwise.
3 EP for converting the captured DVA carrier into Klingon service PLUS 28 EP for the fighters (8H for 16 EP in place the the A-20 squadron and 6 fighters in place of the F-14 squadron for 12 EP).
He may cut cost by using free fighter factors.

FEDS Answer:
FEDS is not aware of any citable requirement to pay for the fighters on captured carriers.

New factors of the converted DVA would be:
DVA: 11-12(8H6)/5-6(4H3)

Is that right so far?
FEDS Answer:
Correct -- a captured Fed DVA factors would be 11-12(8H6)/5-6(4H3) for the capturing empire.


We expect this to be a minor conversion (3 EPs) but one that can only be done at the capital (as for rule 433.45 regarding CVA Construction) and would count against his Heavy Carrier construction limits, too. Right?
FEDS Answer:
It is considered a minor 3EP captured foreign technology conversion, not a CVA conversion.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren

By Stefano Predieri (Preda) on Friday, May 18, 2018 - 12:13 pm: Edit

Question about second turn of PF deployment.

We're playing 178S and we should shortly start 178F, and for the first time ever we hit PF deployment.

As I read rules 502.612, 502.62 and 502.63, Lyrans should get 18 PF squadron to place on bases and enough PF beyond those to put half squadron on every PDU they have on their original planets (up to 1 on minor, 2 on major 4 in the capital).

But there also is rule 502.615 which says that if there aren't enough bases to put all the PFs (and Lyrans don't have enough bases), than the PFs must be placed on available PDUs within the limits thereon.

So, do the Lyrans have to place their bases PFs on all their planets PDUs (so every PF they get on second deployment turn beyond the ones that get on a base are blocked there and PFT can't pick them up) or only in the planets they have conquered and built PDUs on and/or on the extra PDUs on their original planets?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, May 18, 2018 - 08:02 pm: Edit

There are four categories for PF deployment -
1) Bases [SB, BTS, MB? (BS, STB)],
2) Home PDUs (initial),
3) Added Home PDUs, and
4) Garrison PDUs (on captured planets).

(502.63) covers 2 and is a one shot deal (if a Home PDU has fewer than it started with when PF2 hits, you will have to pay for any PFs added when upgraded with more PDUs).

The other categories are under (502.62), as you receive those flotillas, you place them where you wish (don't forget the off-map SB). So one can place these PFs on captured PDUs or forward deploy bases first! Only if you have more PFs than slots available are the remainder placed in the replacement pool (502.615) to resupply PFTs once emptied (Phase 6E or 2B4).


The MB is marked with a ? since I am not sure if one is forced to place PFs on them before placing them in the 'pool' … [thinking on it are FRDs are another possible target...]

By Dana Madsen (Dfm330) on Sunday, June 10, 2018 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Can two forces that both declare they are retreating end up retreating to the same hex?

Situation
- alliance turn, Lyrans have a force of 15 SE on 1001, and 1001 has been captured on a previous turn by the Lyrans. Kzinti have a force of 18 SE attacking 1001. There are 0 SE on Kzinti SB 0902 including fighters
- Lyran BATS 0502 is dead, 504 and 0705 are alive.
- there is another fight happening in 1002, where the Kzinti's outnumber the Lyrans by a few ships.

-assume after 1 round of combat, Lyrans as defenders pass on their first option to retreat. Kzinti's accept their option to retreat. Lyrans accept 2nd option to retreat (although this means they are giving up the planet, I'm not sure they would do this, just trying to figure out what happens if they did).

-Lyrans resolve retreat first as the defender. Shortest path to supply is across 0902 to either BATS 0504 or 0705. If they retreat to 0902 they are 4 hexes from supply, there is a Kzinti SB in that hex but 0 SE. If they retreat to 0901 they are 5 hexes from supply. If they retreat to 1002 they are 4 hexes from supply, but there are kzinti ships in that hex, as well as the Kzinti outnumbering the coalition, although the combined coalition force would be bigger. Having said that there is a Kzinti unit(the SB) in 0902 but 0 SE as there are no fighters.
-My reading is the Lyrans would retreat to 0902. If they went to 1002 they would make it a fighting retreat.
-Now the Kzinti's need to resolve retreat. They are 0 hexes from supply if they retreat to 0902. They are 1 hex from supply if they retreat towards the off map area, 1101. Assuming they outnumber the lyran forces on 0902 (the ones they were just fighting), my reading is they would also retreat to 0902.

Am I missing something? Combat could change ship counts and therefore mess up priorities, but is there any rule that says 2 forces can't independently apply the retreat priorities and end up retreating to the same place?

We have fights in 1001, 1002, 1003 and 0903 where the kzinti has a slightly better force and ship count than the lyran in every one except 1003. I'm trying to pick the correct order to resolve the fights and think through what can happen and not accidentally have 15 lyrans retreat across an undefended SB for a block party. I'm pretty sure I know the order that will work (don't tell me), but I wondered about this as a question.

By Dana Madsen (Dfm330) on Thursday, June 21, 2018 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Nothing adding to the question - FEAR

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, July 03, 2018 - 06:41 pm: Edit

Q(6HW.522) May the Carnivons sell ships to the WYN?

FEDS: Yes, the Carnivons can sell ships to the WYN under (449.2). "All other WYN trade rules apply."

By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Thursday, August 02, 2018 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Q 530.223

There exist carriers of heavy fighters whose YIS is earlier than the race's heavy fighter date. examples include the lyran CSV and kzinti CVH. are these ships available for production at their YIS, or not?

FEDS: SPECIFIC heavy fighter carriers on the SITs are available for production prior to the GENERAL heavy fighter introduction date. Per (530.223) "Each empire may, on and after the date specified for the introduction of heavy fighters (or availability of specific ships with heavy fighters), produce one carrier per turn (by substitution or conversion) for use with heavy fighters.

Q 530.222

when can "changeovers" (as distinct from conversions) to heavy fighters begin? current wording on the online OOB is to refer to the date of "building or conversion" of heavy fighter carriers, so it is not clear that date governs the different deployment method. moreover, heavy fighters do not require a counter or well-defined class (from 530.2) so it is not clear that YIS for heavy fighter carriers limits this process either.

There is a limit of one free HF changeover per turn.

Unless overruled by ADB, heavy fighter carriers can begin HF changeovers on or after the SIT availability date for a given HF carrier using (530.223). Also remember, per (530.222), that there is a limit of one free HF changeover per turn; additional HF changeovers beyond the one free one per turn count against PFT limits. FEDS SENDS

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, August 04, 2018 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Q 520.62 and 521.323 do CRIPPLED monitors provide the die roll penalty to an SAF attack against a planet and also do CRIPPLED monitors prevent ground assaults against PDUs?

FEDS can find no such limitation on crippled monitors to prevent ground attacks or defend against SAF attacks; the rules simply cite the presence of a monitor (crippled or otherwise).

FEDS RULING: Unless overruled by ADB or specifically prohibited by existing rules, crippled monitors still provide a die roll penalty against SAF attacks against a planet and also prevent ground assaults against PDUs.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, August 04, 2018 - 10:58 pm: Edit

Q530.222 Question about the above ruling: It is mentioned that some HF changeovers count against PFT limits. Is this the case prior to PF introduction, and if not, does that mean these additional HF changovers are unavailable, or do they perhaps count against carrier conversion limits, or is this handled in a different way?

---

Quote:

(530.222) ...There is a limit of one free HF changeover per turn. After the PF introduction date, the construction of a heavy fighter carrier or conversion of a non-carrier to heavy fighters may be counted against that empire’s PFT limit (530.223) or against its carrier limit; additional HF changeovers beyond the one free one per turn count against these limits...

(530.223) Production: Each empire may, on and after the date specified for the introduction of heavy fighters (or availability of specific ships with heavy fighters), produce one carrier per turn (by substitution or conversion) for use with heavy fighters. This is above the carrier limit but counts against the PFT limit. (This is true even before there is a PFT limit; in actual fact, PFTs count against the heavy fighter carrier limit.)

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, August 08, 2018 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Memo for Record

F&E STAFF: Did we answer this question? Is so, where and when ?

==========

---

Quote:

By Matthew Smith (Mgsmith67) on Sunday, May 10, 2015 - 09:23 am: Edit

I have a question about 203.51 and 205.32.

FEDS ruled on 12/29/12 that a pinned ship immediately stops all movement. The phasing player's only choice is to decide which ship that is.

So, here's the question:

It is the Alliance turn.

A large Lyran force is in 1001 with a scout. One Lyran FF is in 1202, and a large Klingon force is in 1403, but lacks a scout. The Lyrans are attempting to upgrade a MB->BATS at 1105.

The Kzinti wish to stop the base upgrade, and have sufficient ships available in the capital to do so, but not if pinned by either the large force in 1001 or the large force in 1403.

They plan to enter the 2-hex reaction range of 1001 only briefly, at 1202, and then turn South to continue on to 1105.

As they enter 1202, the Lyran player announces "you must leave one ship behind, and it immediately ceases all movement. Since you have a ship that has ceased movement, then by 205.32, I can react two hexes, and I do so, pinning your entire force."

The Kzinti player says "No, I get to chose when that ship stops, and the remainder of my ships surely get an opportunity to leave before your second pulse of reaction."


Which player is correct?

---

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, August 17, 2018 - 10:07 am: Edit

May it please the court -

203.44 was originally asked about in 2005 and an answer was given (full reply in Q&A 2005 Archive Folder).

From Posting (found via Search on 203.44)

To try to clean that up:

Question #2: When a force is leaving behind a part of a stack, when exactly does reaction to the force that ended movement? Before the main force continues on (thus is still in the hex of the force that stopped movement), or is it that the main force moves on, thus showing the secondary force has ended movement, which allow reaction to the secondary force after the main force has continued on?

ANSWER to #2: When you split a stack into substacks, you decide in what order to move the substacks (or not move them for that matter). So if you split off a single ship (the DD in your example), you have two options. You can finish moving the substack consisting of the DD first, which would consist of declaring its movement over (and the enemy could then react into the hex in response to the DD using up its remaining movement points in that hex), and then you could move the substack consisting of the rest of the fleet (of course now some or all of this substack may not be able to move due to pinning). OR do it the other way around, after splitting the stack you can move the substack consisting of the majority of the fleet first, and since you are moving away from the enemy this allows no reaction, after that substack is done you must go back to the substack consisting of the DD and resolve its remaining movement by declaring it is done moving which would allow reaction into the DD's hex at that point. When you split a stack into substacks you decide what order to move the substacks in, and the enemy can react only to the currently moving substack (since he doesn't know what you will be doing with the other substacks until you actually do it). You must move all substacks (or declare their movement over) of a given stack before moving to a different stack. This is rule (203.44).

I think I know the answer by reading the section on splitting sub stacks carefully, but my Gorn opponent doesn't agree with me.

Edit: It should also be noted that if reaction does not occur until after the main force continues on to 4213, then an argument could be made that the next stack has started it's move, thus ending any possible reaction to the last stack, and so the Romulans could not react to the DD in 4212 at all. (Which is why I think reaction to the DD would occur before the main stack would have moved from the hex.)

Thanks for you help, and sorry for such a complicated scenario.

ANSWER: The point is that when you split a stack into substacks with the intention of leaving a unit behind, you don't actually have to declare that given unit is ceasing movement until after the other substacks are done moving. For all the enemy knows, the DD is going to move another direction after the bulk of your forces reaches its destination.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 03, 2018 - 11:51 pm: Edit

(319.0) May a fighter-strike be performed into an empty hex?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 01:19 pm: Edit

RBE:

---

Quote:

(319.14) PROHIBITED TARGETS: Strikes cannot be made into neutral empires, neutral zone hexes which are prohibited for entry, or the WYN Cluster. Strikes cannot be sent into a hex without an enemy unit to attack.

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 01:42 pm: Edit

Ack, right there in the rules. I promise I read them before posting my question; my apologies!