---

Quote:

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 05, 2018 - 09:15 pm: Edit

Q511.53 Are tugs with different pods considered the same type or different type (ie TGT with two scout pods vs a TGT with two carrier pods)?

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 05, 2018 - 10:34 pm: Edit

In this case, there are two TGTs in the hex, one with carrier pods and one with battle pods.

The question is: are they treated as the same type for purposes of splitting ships to mobile and to static categories?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, October 06, 2018 - 02:15 am: Edit

Richard

I agree with Thomas, as the base hull is the same.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, October 06, 2018 - 03:00 am: Edit

The base hull is the same on (for example) a Fed DD and a Fed SC, but for purposes of 511.53, they are NOT the same type.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, October 06, 2018 - 04:58 am: Edit

Deleted by Author.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, October 12, 2018 - 12:34 pm: Edit

I believe the 511 question was essentially asked and answered a few months ago.

Anything that's crippled is added to the cripple pool and immediately assigned at the end of the round to a system.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 12, 2018 - 12:43 pm: Edit

*Upon reading of that (before posting my question today) I could not determine the answer to THIS question.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, October 12, 2018 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Curious. But isn't the ruling based on the *procedure* for handling cripples - which would dictate the outcome for *however* the defending ship was crippled and from *whichever* pool the ship defending came from?

I'm more trying to understand why you think the prior ruling did not cover your proposed scenario?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 12, 2018 - 01:17 pm: Edit

The ruling doesn't say WHICH crippled ship pool or pools a ship can or must go to when newly crippled, unless I'm missing something (please quote it if I am).

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, October 12, 2018 - 01:40 pm: Edit

Agree, it doesn't. But it seems to me that, regardless of which pool a defending ship started in, at the end of *each* battle round *any* crippled ship is assigned to a system as a static ship. After that assignment, is designation as "static in system X" doesn't change for the rest of that combat.

Which brings me full circle: why would it make a difference which ship you are talking about in your Q on 511?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 12, 2018 - 02:51 pm: Edit

Assigning a newly crippled ship to Vielsalm system where all the PDU are gone makes it a lot more vulnerable than if you put it in the Kzintai system with 12PDU and a monitor.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, October 12, 2018 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Again, agree, but what does the benefit of the choice have to do with the procedure?

The procedure seems to me, clearly, if a defending ship is crippled during combat in a capital system then, regardless of whether the ship was mobile or static, at the end of each battle round, take any cripples and decide which system to assign them to as newly static ships.

Obviously you'd assign them to the heavily defended capital planet (or partial retreat them).

But it seems clear that the ruling doesn't call for any other result. Just because the ruling doesn't say "all ships regardless of prior static/mobile designation" doesn't mean that there is a reasonable interpretation otherwise.

Is there a reason to read the ruling any other way?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 12, 2018 - 04:57 pm: Edit

I don't see how the ruling answers my question that I posted in Q&A. I would like to put new cripples to Kzintai, but my opponent says that I cannot.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, October 12, 2018 - 07:02 pm: Edit

(511.52) assigns the initial cripple pool location (single planet or multiple planets), then after ships are crippled (511.53), they are assigned in the next combat round to (511.52)'s cripple pool.

If not assigned initially, then it seems defender's choice after the fact...

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 12, 2018 - 07:21 pm: Edit

That's just an opinion though. 'seems'.

I'm just trying to get a solid one way or the other answer here. Thanks though.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, October 13, 2018 - 08:48 pm: Edit

RBE, it looks like the defenders choice (one or multiple), but if you're asking can that choice be made if it wasn't initially set, big grey area...

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, October 13, 2018 - 10:01 pm: Edit

I'm asking about new cripples after a battle round, so grey area.

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, October 14, 2018 - 10:11 am: Edit

See comments by FEAR in Q&A. Personal comment here: It is usual for players to put cripples into the most defended location to keep them from being killed at 2:1 by directed damage at an off system and allow them to be repaired if the defender can hold the hex until their player turn. By putting them in the most defended system they are protecting them from directed damage as there are usually more juicy targets in those locations (PDUs, FRDs, SB, etc.).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, October 14, 2018 - 11:50 am: Edit

That was the concern at the time.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, October 14, 2018 - 11:53 am: Edit

fixed, thank you - FEAR

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Sunday, October 14, 2018 - 02:53 pm: Edit

So there are two types of ships than can be crippled at an "off system" (not the most defended system in the capital hex, usually the actual capital planet) those are ships that were assigned there as static units and units deployed there from the mobile force.

When they are crippled due to combat action, are they treated differently? Can the statics ships which are now crippled and cripples from the mobile force placed into the capital system cripple pool? Do statics that get crippled stay in the system they were assigned or forced to partial retreat? Or do they get to be reassigned to the another system's cripple pool? I think it should be clear that the capital cripple pool doesn't seem to have any special status, so if they can be assigned to any system's cripple pool at that point, sounds like they could go anywhere. Same two questions apply to the mobile ships that get crippled, do they have to stay in the cripple pool in the system they got crippled in or do they get to be assigned to any system's cripple pool at that point?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, October 15, 2018 - 10:41 am: Edit

I made my comments an official question (though contingent because Mike C's comments as FEAR weren't clear to me regarding a resolution to Richard's question).

Personally, I cannot see how, in view of FEDS prior 10/18 ruling on 511.532, there can be any result other than both crippled ships in Richard's example are take out of their current assignments reassigned as static ships who whatever system the defender sees fit (probably to Kzintai) - or partial retreated.

Is there a logical argument to be made otherwise? Did I misunderstand something? These are honest questions.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, October 15, 2018 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Mike C, thanks for clarifying. That seems to definitively answer the question Richard asked.

To the extent there was an appeal, I withdraw it.

-T

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, October 15, 2018 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Well I'm still confused. Will post after I look at everything.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, November 03, 2018 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Chuck,

On the question about AUX CVs, seems like a change to the game. Your post said your answer also answered the follow up question. Thus, based on the last paragraph of the question, it now seems that a regular carrier now has the ability to do a three hex reaction (with its fighters).

Did you intend to allow three hex reactions?

Example: Kzinti Home fleet is in 1401 with 100 SEQ and 10 CVs. The Klingon Northern Fleet, with 50 SEQ, moves up the 14xx row and when it reaches hex 1403 the Kzinti player announces extended reaction to hex 1402. The Klingon player then announces that North Fleet moves to 1503. The Kzinti player then uses normal reaction to move all of Home fleet to hex 1503; pinning the 50 ships of Klingon Northern Fleet.

Next, the Klingon player moves Kumerian squadron (5 ships) up the 16xx hex row until it reaches hex 1603. To his surprise, the Kzinti announces reaction from Kzinti Home fleet, even though it's used both extended and normal reaction. Pointing to your ruling, the Kzinti player states that the fighter factors on his 10 CV groups can now react because they are "independent" of the carrier. As a result, they can react into hex 1603. Of course, command point difference might allow the Klingon player to keep moving some ships, but at least 1 Klingon ship must be left behind to satisfy the pin.

Note, that another Klingon fleet going straight up the 14xx hex row may also end up having to deal with fighter factors from the CVs in Kzinti Home. When the Klingons reach 1402 or 1403, the CVs in Kzinti Home fleet can now react fighters from hex 1503 (again, effectively a third hex of reaction).


Personally, I think the problem here is reading the word "reacts independently". I don't think SVC meant to allow a third hex of reaction. I just think that the fighters can leave the carrier, but ultimately are still bound to the carrier's reaction distance.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I've never seen any one attempt to do what Dana is asserting. I mean, I'm not upset or anything, but it feels like a completely new capability being added to the F&E game.

Is this intended?