| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, September 07, 2018 - 05:34 am: Edit |
Q302.233 Does the Tug, Convoy, or other eligible colony building unit(s) (446.12) or (445.52) have to be included in the battle force during each round of combat at the location of the colony?
NOTE: (446.12) is silent on this matter, but (510.231) or (510.232) may apply.
Unless overruled by ADB, any unit(s) acting in the capacity of a tug setting up or upgrading a base or colony is treated as a tug for these said purposes under (302.233).
FEDS Note to Staff: Please remember that we need to change the wording to include tugs and units acting as a tug for the purpose of setting up or upgrading a base.
FEDS SENDS
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, September 13, 2018 - 09:33 pm: Edit |
Q316.2 Does an Admiral affect the command rating of the ship chosen as the flagship for the purposes of the pinning exception (203.55)? (203.55) PINNING EXCEPTION: After completing the basic procedure in (203.50), but before movement of the un-pinned ships resumes, compare the Command Ratings of the ship with the largest Command Rating from each side. If the Moving Player’s rating is higher, he may move a number of units equal to the difference in the Command Ratings out of the hex. (At least one ship must be left behind in the hex.) The moving force must include the command ship used in the calculation.
Quote:
========
(316.2) EFFECT OF ADMIRALS
(316.21) COMMAND: The presence of an admiral increases the maximum size of the battle force by one ship (even if the Admiral is not on the nominal flagship).
(316.214) Admirals cannot be used to increase the size of a reserve fleet (507.2).
FEDS Ruling: Unless overruled by ADB, the presence of an Admiral (or MMG) DOES NOT increase the command rating of a given unit for pinning calculation purposes; the presence of a ADM/MMG only permits one additional unit beyond the command rating of a BATTLE FORCE.
FEDS Supporting Rationale: The presence of an Admiral (or MMG for that matter) allows for the increase of a size of the BATTLE FORCE. FEDS could not find further evidence within the rules to suggest that the actual command rating of the ADM/MMG's ship is increased. In addition, there is no enabling rule that even suggest that this is the case. Note the difference between a ship's command rating and the increased size of the battle force.
FEDS SENDS
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, September 15, 2018 - 04:26 am: Edit |
Turtle: See answers above.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, September 15, 2018 - 01:25 pm: Edit |
Follow up: (316.11) GENERAL: Each race has a number of admiral counters as defined below. Admirals have the effect of increasing the command rating of their battle force (316.21).
(Q316.213) This rule makes reference to an Admiral increasing the command rating of the flagship in a battle force (not specifying that the ADM is aboard), and in one case specifying that an admiral increases the command rating of HIS ship.
This seems to provide a different way to handle the ADMs function and is perhaps unintended. Should the ADM in these cases just increase the size of the battle force rather than increase a flagship's command rating?
(Q316.213) In the case of pursuit (307.21) an admiral could not increase the number of ships in the pursuit force beyond six (but would, for this case only, increase the command rating of the pursuit flagship by one). An admiral would increase the number of ships in a slow unit pursuit force. (302.742A) An n admiral in the pursued force would increase the command rating of his ship and might (307.31) allow an additional ship to be included (up to the
maximum force).
============
Quote:
(316.21) COMMAND: The presence of an admiral increases the maximum size of the battle force by one ship (even if the Admiral is not on the nominal flagship).
It is clear that the intent of this rule is to allow the presence of an Admiral to increase of a size of the BATTLE FORCE by increasing the overall command rating of said force. Note that it is possible for a fleet to have the battle force commanded by a Battle Tug (which is not qualified to operate a ADM) with 11 frigates so long as the ADM is PROPERLY assigned to one of the FFs (granted this would be rare): the overall rating of the battle force is increased by one ship by the presence of the ADM in that battle force per (316.21).
The instances when where the rule talks about a specific ship needs to be corrected in future updates to more clearly reflect the effect of the ADM on the overall battle force command rating and not the specific ship itself.
To function properly, an ADM must be assigned to the ship with the highest command rating but that ship must be QUALIFIED to host the ADM.
Bottomline: The Flagship provides the command rating for the battle force; the presence of an ADM in that battle force allows the addition of one additional unit above that rating.
FEDS SENDS
| By James Lowry (Rindis) on Thursday, September 20, 2018 - 10:39 pm: Edit |
(Q436.24) If a B10 under construction is 'used', it cannot be worked on, but costs no money to keep at its current total. However, the rule also specifically mentions "returns to the capital by retrograde", implying that this is only true if it left the capital hex at some point.
So, can a B10 be worked on the turn after it was used in combat in any capacity via (436.33)? If not, does this only apply if it is actually used, or must the Coalition player declare if it is staying in its slipway at the beginning of a capital assault?
| By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 07:59 pm: Edit |
So, to be clear, Jame's question is not a hypothetical, this just came up during our game KWH (There is a Hurricane Tonight) in Active scenarios. And, indeed, its been very active this turn.
-Byron
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Saturday, September 29, 2018 - 03:37 pm: Edit |
Q436.24 If a B10 under construction is 'used', it cannot be worked on, but costs no money to keep at its current total. However, the rule also specifically mentions "returns to the capital by retrograde", implying that this is only true if it left the capital hex at some point. So, can a B10 be worked on the turn after it was used in combat in any capacity via (436.33)? If not, does this only apply if it is actually used, or must the Coalition player declare if it is staying in its slipway at the beginning of a capital assault?
A436.24 This is clearly in the rules if they are read as a whole. Per (436.2) and (436.3) to be able to do any “Work on the Ship” two things must be true: The B10 in question needs to be at a starbase at the capital system and it must be the Klingon Players production phase. He can then choose from any of the options in (436.22) through (436.25). As long as those qualifications are met, according to rules as written, the B10 must be worked on.
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, September 30, 2018 - 06:08 pm: Edit |
Q526.315 If a base has sent its fighters into another battle hex, but that battle hex has not been resolved before the battle at the base can a FCR transfer its fighters to base after the approach battle in the base hex?
Note I do not believe FEDS answer here covers this question.
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, October 05, 2018 - 09:53 am: Edit |
Q305.22 If a X-Ship is captured does it produce XTPs instead of EPs if option 2 is invoked? 523.0 is silent on this matter except that option 3 under (305.23) cannot be used as stated in (523.116). The salvage rule (439.19) covers the destruction of "friendly" x-ships in combat.
| 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)?
(511.53) STEP 3: The Defending Player divides his remaining ships in half. This is done on a type-by-type basis (one FF to each half, one CVS to each half, etc.) and must be divided as evenly as possible based on number of ships (first) and combat strength (second).
(511.531) The combat value of the two groups must be as equal as possible. Any odd ship or points can be distributed by the Defender.
RULING BY FEDS: Unless overruled by ADB, tugs are a specific type of ship and are divided as such per (511.531) and NOT by their assigned pod or mission. If there are sub-classes (types) of tugs (such as combat tugs and cargo tugs) then these too are divided by types. One cannot have two TGCs in one group and two TGTs in the other. (This also applies to LTTs and D5Hs, D5Hs and D5Gs, and other similar ships.
COMMENT FROM FEDS: Remember that under (511.531), the combat values of each group must be as equal as possible.
FEAR Concurs
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 12, 2018 - 12:00 pm: Edit |
Q511.532 This is the situation. In 1401, in the Vielsalm system, a CL from the static pool and an FF from the mobile ships are both crippled.
Is the CL required to be assigned to the crippled ship pool of the Vielsalm system (it can retreat if not, this is understood)?
Is the FF (which was mobile) required to be assigned to the Vielsalm crippled ship pool?
Or is it possible to assign one or both newly crippled ships to a different system?
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, October 12, 2018 - 07:37 pm: Edit |
See the only cripple pool creation in (511.52) as a reference. The cripples become part of the capital's defense-limited units or retreat them per the rules specified. FEAR notes that this is pretty straight forward in the rules.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 12, 2018 - 10:10 pm: Edit |
Q(511.52) This rule seems to imply that there is a crippled ship pool in each system, rather than one pool for the entire hex (at the capital planet, presumably). Is this correct?
From the rule:
Q(511.52)STEP 2: Find the capital chart for that empire. This has
four rows of three boxes, one row for each system. Set up the
systems with the PDU markers based on (511.1) and any prior
damage or additional defenses.
The Defending Player deploys any “defense-limited” units
(see below) and all crippled ships in the system boxes (the first
or left column). The crippled ships can be used in combat and
given up as casualties, but if they leave that system, they must
retreat out of the capital hex and won’t be able to be repaired
(420.421) in that hex on the next Player Turn.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, October 14, 2018 - 10:06 am: Edit |
I don't have the rules in front of me at the moment, but I believe you are correct. Each system can have cripples in it, but the only way they can leave that system is to retreat from the hex.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, October 15, 2018 - 10:35 am: Edit |
Appeal (?) regarding FEAR's statement (ruling?) regarding Richard Eitzen's question on 511.532.
I'm not sure what, exactly, is the ruling here by FEAR on 10/14/18 (or whether there actually is a ruling at all). However, *IF* FEAR's statement means that one or both of the crippled ships in Richard's question would have to be assigned to the local system, then such a ruling would contradict FEDS previous ruling on 511.532. Here is FEDS ruling:
Quote:By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, October 08, 2017 - 04:38 pm: Edit
Some questions about capital assaults.
1st Question: A Kzinti CC is crippled at Vielsalm on the second battle round, it was a mobile ship.
Q: Is it now a static ship assigned to Vielsalm?
FEDS: Let’s back this whole thing up and do a review of the procedures capital assault under (511.5). Each step deals with a specific action for conducting combat.
(511.51) STEP 1 - MULTI-SYSTEM APPROACH BATTLE
(511.52) STEP 2 – SYSTEM STATUS AND SET UP
(511.53) STEP 3 – DEFENSIVE FLEET DIVISION
(511.54) STEP 4 – STATIC FLEET DEPLOYMENTS
(511.55) STEP 5 – ATTACK SITE AND FORCE SELECTIONS
(511.56) STEP 6 – DEFENSIVE FORCE SELECTIONS
(511.57) STEP 7 – RESOLVE BATTLE SITES
(511.58) STEP 8 – POST-COMBAT FLEET TRACKING
Step 3 deals with HOW to divide and the assign mobile and static defensive fleet elements prior to the first system attacks. Of note is rule (511.532) -- this deals with how to assign ships crippled during combat rounds of the current turn in the capital.
Quote:
(511.532) Ships crippled during combat rounds of the current turn in the capital are taken from the designated static and mobile forces and added to the crippled ships pool designated by this step. Crippled ships of this pool are available to be placed within Battle Forces as static ships.
What this rule means is that once ANY friendly ship is crippled during combat rounds at the capital, then that crippled ship must be removed from its designated static or mobile force and must be assigned to a SPECIFIC static crippled ship pool OR use the partial retreat rules to leave the capital hex. This should have been added to Step 8 to provide clarity.
FEDS RULING: Unless overruled by ADB add this clarifying statement to the end of step 8 (511.58) of the Procedures for Capital Assault:
Per (511.532), once ANY friendly ship is crippled during combat rounds at the capital, then that crippled ship must be removed from its designated static or mobile force and must be assigned to a SPECIFIC static crippled ship pool OR use the partial retreat rules to leave the capital hex per rule (302.723).
2nd Question:
A Kzinti crippled CC is assigned to Vronkett during the allocation of ships in 1401. It is clear that if it 'leaves the system' it must retreat. Can this CC use an FRD at the Kzintai system to conduct RCR? If it can, must it then retreat?
FEDS: YES – If the newly crippled CC is assigned to that system (Kzintai in this case) per (511.532), then it can be repaired by any repair resources assigned to that system. However, if the newly crippled CC is send to the crippled ship pool of another system then “NO”, as it cannot be repaired at the Kzintai System and then assigned to another Kzinti system after repairs.
Quote:Per (511.532), once ANY friendly ship is crippled during combat rounds at the capital, then that crippled ship must be removed from its designated static or mobile force and must be assigned to a SPECIFIC static crippled ship pool OR use the partial retreat rules to leave the capital hex per rule (302.723).
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, October 15, 2018 - 11:52 am: Edit |
FEAR was just pointing out that the rules are clear on this issue. No ruling needed.
(511.52) designates either the system boxes or the static boxes of the capital defense card as valid locations for cripples to be placed.
(511.532) states that when a ship is crippled in combat it is taken from the designated mobile or static force it is currently in and then placed in a "cripple ships pool designated by this step" (511.52).
What is unclear about this? "Cripple pools" are either of the first two boxes on the system defense chart. A newly crippled ship can be placed in either of them. If this is contrary to what FEDS has ruled, he and I need to have a discussion.
| By Bill Steele (Bill83501) on Friday, October 19, 2018 - 10:20 pm: Edit |
I have a question on 413.41
I have a partial supply grid with one ship in it, and a SB missing 2 fighters.
Do I have to spend a full EP? or would 0.2 pay for it all?
(413.41) says "Each Economic Point produced in a Partial Supply Grid can be used to supply up to five units, including up to twelve replacement fighters." It doesn't say each .2 EP can be used to supply a ship and 2.4 fighters. Therefore, 1 EP will supply up to five ships and 12 replacement fighters. No fractions here are indicated. - FEAR
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 19, 2018 - 11:51 pm: Edit |
Q511.532 What _exactly_ is the crippled ship pool?
A. Is it a separate pool from static ships assigned to a system? Each system has a "cripple pool", even if there are no cripples there. All cripples belong to the cripple pool in the system they are in and once there the only way the cripples can leave is by retreat per the rules.
B. Is there one crippled ship per system? Huh? See A. above.
Also, if after a battle round, a defending ship is crippled, how exactly is this handled? If a ship is crippled during combat in a capital assault, it is assigned to one of the systems in that capital joining the cripple pool as described above.
FEAR notes that all this is clearly spelled out in the rules, just don't try to read anything into the rules, read them and follow them.
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, October 20, 2018 - 05:39 am: Edit |
Q540.22 Does the Federation being at limited war block a strategic movement path between the Klingon and Romulan captials and the Lyran and Romulan capitals? (204.0) is silent on this as well. (540.143) gives guidance on this with the movement of diplomats. Once a war status is in effect (Limited or just war) diplomatic movement is blocked through the war status side. So, yes, in your specific case.
FEAR notes that fully reading the 540.x section would reveal this quickly.
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, October 20, 2018 - 08:38 pm: Edit |
Q540.532 - I think the Q here is if the cripple pool assignment wasn't done initially (no cripples), is the defender forced into having system cripple pool (one per system) or has the option of having a capital cripple pool (capital system only) once a defending ship remains crippled at the end of a combat round?
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, October 20, 2018 - 08:58 pm: Edit |
FEAR: Thank you for your answer; I had not been able to find anything saying that EACH system had a cripple pool or whatnot.
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, October 28, 2018 - 07:17 pm: Edit |
Q502.615 Does (502.615) create an exception to (502.63) under (446.32) if the colony in question has PDUs and all other eligible bases and planets have received the maximum number of PF Flotillas allowed under (502.62) and (502.63)? Ex: The Gorns have established colonies with PDUs along the Federation border. At the introduction of PF2 they have not replaced all of the bases they lost since Turn 12 resulting in 3 extra flotillas. They have 2 colonies both with 2 PDUs on them for increased defense.
| By Dana Madsen (Dfm330) on Saturday, November 03, 2018 - 01:39 pm: Edit |
Question on reaction of Aux CV (LAV or SAV) and fighters.
549.23 Reaction Movement: Auxiliaries can use Reaction Movement (205.0), but for only one hex (extended or normal). Any attrition units carried could react separately (501.81)
So, LAV in 0705 (co-located with scout, BATS) could use extended react to movement in 0803 by moving to 0704. Are the LAV's fighters then allowed to react separately using short range reaction into hex 0803, either to the original movement into 0803 or another stack moving later in the turn. Effectively gaining 2 hexes of reaction move although the Aux only moves 1 hex itself.
Essentially, can the Aux react in extended reaction, and then it's fighters react in normal reaction. Or can there only be one reaction from the combined unit, either the Aux for 1 hex (extended or normal) or the fighters which can only use normal reaction.
Follow up question on regular carriers. Could a CV with 6 fighters react once using extended reaction and then it's fighters react separately using normal reaction. I believe I have played it that way in the past but don't know that I've thought about it.
If this is possible, it could be argued that a regular CV could use extended reaction to move once, regular reaction to move a second time, and then have it's fighters react a third pulse which would have major implications. Although I think 205.35 Sequence would counter that specific claim.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, November 03, 2018 - 02:32 pm: Edit |
Yes, the attrition units of an aux can independently react after the aux itself moves in reaction. (205.70) INDEPENDENCE: Fighters and PFs can react independently of their carriers and tenders (including bases but not PDUs). Reaction Movement is the only way that fighters/PFs can leave the hex of their base/carrier/tender. However, see (319.21)‡.
Quote:
==========
(501.81) REACTION: Fighters can move in Reaction Movement independently of their base or carrier; see (205.7). Fighters cannot move independently of their carriers except by (205.7) or by (319.0) in Fighter Operations.
The reading of these rules also covers your followup question.
FEDS SENDS
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, November 06, 2018 - 11:27 am: Edit |
Follow up question on 549.23 and independence of fighter reactions relative to their carriers.
Q549.23: If an AUX CV uses extended reaction to react 1 hex towards an enemy fleet, can the fighters independently continue the reaction to a fleet that stops 2 hexes away?
In particular, the question arises from the idea that the fighter reaction is "independent" of the carrier. Fighters do not have extended reaction capability (or if they do it is limited to 1 hex). AUXes do, but can only react one hex. So, if the enemy fleet "stops" 2 hexes away, then the fighters could not react at all when the AUX was 2 hex away. The AUX cannot react again because it is limited to 2 hexes. The Fighters cannot react at all because the enemy fleet is no longer moving (it stopped when it was 2 hexes away).
It could be argued that the reaction is being "completed", but the problem with that assertion is that the fighters are "independent" of the carrier. Thus, the fighters don't get the opportunity to react until after the AUX has reacted to be within range 1 of the enemy fleet - but if the enemy fleet has already stopped, then the "independent" fighters don't get a reaction chance in the first place, and thus cannot "complete" the reaction.
Is this assessment correct?
Example to make this question concrete: A Lyran fleet is in hex 803. A large AUX CV is in hex 705 at the BATS in hex 705.
On Alliance turn 1, A Kzinti fleet moves a fleet to hex 803, and then stops (the movement to 803 is its last possible pulse of movement). The Lyran fleet in 803 does not react during movement of the Zin fleet.
In reaction to the Kzinti player moving to 803, the Lyran player reacts the large AUX CV to hex 704 (this is allowed).
The Lyran player wants to "continue" to react by having the 12 fighters on the large AUX CV react to the battle in 803 - stating that the fighters can have the additional hex because they react "independently" of the carrier.
The Kzinti player objects, stating that the Kzinti fleet has already stopped. The fighters could not react from 705 because the distance was 2. The AUX could legally react, but because the fighters react "independently" - they must first be offered the opportunity to react again before they could use their 1 hex reaction.
The Lyran player counters that the fighters are "continuing" the reaction, and thus can proceed to the battle. However, the Kzinti player argues back that the fighters cannot "continue" the reaction because they react independently of the AUX.
Please resolve. Thank you.
(Note: The answer is not urgent, because the players have made an arrangement for their own game, but it would be nice to have the answer for future reference).
====================
Unless overruled by ADB, if an aux carrier/PFT uses extended reaction to react its one allowable reaction movement to hex towards an enemy unit that stops movement two hexes away, then any assigned attrition units can react independent of their aux carrier/PFT to enter the hex of the now stopped unit. EXCEPTION: See (526.442) where PFs based on SAPs cannot use reaction movement to leave the hex of their Auxiliary PFT.
FEDS notes that the stimulus that caused the Aux to use extended reaction to move to the target two hexes away is the same stimulus used for the assigned attrition units to independently react to the same target. This is because of the limitation on the limited reaction movement of the aux and not that the aux is now blind to the target after moving one hex in reaction movement.
FEDS SENDS.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |