I've no problem with it, I've always thought you could react fighters off a carrier that had reacted as far as it could.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, November 03, 2018 - 11:41 pm: Edit

Weird. I've never seen it before. And I've been playing F&E since it published - and actively for the last 10 years.

Not that that gives me any kind of "street cred". Just seems odd.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, November 04, 2018 - 01:08 am: Edit

The rule is plan language. Just know that the fighters/PFs must react to proper reaction stimuli from an adjacent hex. These rules have been in effect unchanged for over 30 years (back to the Deluxe Edition Rulebook).

Remember, just because one has never used or encountered a rule doesn't mean it's a "new capability".

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, November 06, 2018 - 03:02 am: Edit

To add to what Ted has said - I have never seen Fighhters react 3 hexes (Extended with CV, Normal with CV and Normal on their own).

It allows Ship based fighters to in effect react twice on the normal basis.

The other issue is - should the reacting player have to designate which ships are pinned if they move into a hex with enemy forces?

(As it has never come up in any of my games, we have never thought to see what ship/ship equivalents are pinned - i.e. 47 ships are 18 of the 36 fighters pin your 50 ship equivalents).

Also, to support that Fighters shouldn't be able to react 3 hexes (in total) - IIRC (rules not with me) - Offensive Fighter operations can not be used on the 6th move impulse - i.e Fighters can't move 6 hexes on a CV and 1 hex by Offensive.

So why should a fighter be able to react further than it can either move or any other ship react?

(ignoring Fast Ships etc)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, November 06, 2018 - 04:49 am: Edit

Unless overruled by ADB, rules (205.70) and (501.81) stand as written and, after consultation with the FEAR, no additional interpretation is required. Note that after research of legacy rulebooks, the text of these rules have been consistent since the founding of the original game in 1986 and the revisions of 1989, 1990, 1993, 2000, and 2010.

Please note that players are free to challenge any opinion or ruling by FEAR/FEDS by following the Q&A protocol.

Reference Rule Text:

---

Quote:

(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)‡.

==========

(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.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, November 06, 2018 - 11:10 am: Edit

No challenge here... just surprise!

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 09:11 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Q

About assigning escorts (mentioned in the monitor Q&A)... is this really intended? As far as I recall, escorts can only be assigned at the behinning of combat, this would leave new construction carriers very vulnerable to such an E&S mission as they don't have escorts assigned until the combat phase.

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 09:13 am: Edit

Also see the note at the end of the combat phase under (105.0-M17)

---

Quote:

All players may, but are not required to, disband carrier groups and other groups including: SAFs (521.62), Klingon 77th PF
Division (513.22), Kzinti 23rd Fi-Con Division (513.32).

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 09:14 am: Edit

Turtle: but what about new construction carriers that don't see combat? They go to a reserve without assigned escorts even if new construction escorts are with them?

It also does require tracking escorts as assigned, outside of the combat phase, which is annoying.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 09:20 am: Edit

If my opponent builds a carrier(s) and escorts I assume that the escorts are assigned to the carrier(s) in question until such time as the carrier and escorts are separated. I almost always ask that my opponent group carriers and assigned escorts together so I know what is escorted and what isn't. In return I always group my carriers and assigned escorts together, so my opponent can figure out what is escorted and what isn't.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 09:53 am: Edit

I don't think the sequence of play supports that assumption though - I could be wrong.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 10:00 am: Edit

It probably doesn't, but how often do you build carriers without building or converting escorts somewhere? The Fed CVF and DVL are the only real exception to building carriers without escorts that I know of, and those immediately get put in the raid pool when built that way.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 10:32 am: Edit

That's not the issue (Whether or not one builds a carrier AND escorts), the issue is that you can end up with carriers and escorts in the same hex without having a chance to 'form them into actual carrier groups' before the other player's E&S phase.

It also requires a lot of record keeping, as you will have to track the composition of carrier groups in case of E&S attacks by prime teams.

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 10:56 am: Edit

Just stack them together for now. That should be sufficient without "a lot of record keeping" like we have been doing for years without issue.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 12:36 pm: Edit

Outside of the actual combat phase and E&S raids, can anyone think of reasons why escorts assignments need to be recorded or tracked throughout a player turn?

If players are tracking dozens of escort assignments globally just to protect against the occasional possibility of an E&S raid, then I am of the opinion to simply treat E&S raids as a form of combat that permits the raided player an opportunity to form escort groups within the raid hex prior to the E&S raider declaring its specific mission and target for their raiding E&S Prime Team. We do this already in the raid phase combat should the requirements of SSC be exceeded.

NOTE: This is my personal opinion and NOT an official ruling.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 12:46 pm: Edit

It has come up at times for me, but usually I try to convince my opponent to do just as you've suggested above if it comes up.

I don't know of any other time that escorts are needed than those you have listed, and your solution seems reasonable to me.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 12:53 pm: Edit

I am of the opinion that F&E does not need to add more record keeping to the game unless it is absolutely necessary. Players want to PLAY the game and not needlessly track ADMINISTRIVIA of the game.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Escort assignment could also matter for normal raids and special raids (drone, fighter, PF).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 02:43 pm: Edit

It's already in the rules for special and normal raids.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Would it not be easier to say 'carriers are assumed to always operate with at least 1 escort' and only if there are insufficient legal escorts in a hex* would a player be required to designate which ships are not escorted'?

Rule can apply to FCR's being inner escorts, to protect them too.

* - Perhaps after a player turn there will be insufficient lighter ships to cover all carriers (i.e Ad Hoc Escorts up to a CA) and so this should be pretty rare.

I can see a lot of admin being created otherwise!

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Rather than have a weird new rule as you say, I'd rather just clone the existing procedure for this sort of thing and allow it during the E&S step. Easier to remember.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Richard:

The normal raid rules provide that an alternate attack on a unit escorted under 515.0 must fight the entire group, but has no provision for groups to be created, broken down, or otherwise changed during the raid phase. Nor is there any such provision in 515.0.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 06:16 pm: Edit

Jason, The Raid rules also provide that a carrier escort might react to a raid. See (314.242).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 06:59 pm: Edit

It's in the sequence of play.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Richard:

Where? The first place I see anything regarding assigning / establishing escort groups is in step 5-3D. There does not appear to be anything in either 3A2 or 3A3, or at any earlier point in the SoP.