Q521.62:

This rule states that:

If a player is building an SAF, the cost can be reduced by removing one FTL (five points) or one (or two) FTS (two points each) which are in the shipyard hex, absorbing them into the SAF.

However, on the SITs use of troop ships in the building of an SAF is listed as a conversion of the FTL or FTS.

Is using the troopship a conversion or a build discount? It matters because the former case consumes available conversion capacity.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, November 09, 2018 - 12:45 pm: Edit

A(521.62):

Unless overruled by ADB, an FTL or FTSs used to reduce the cost of assembling a SAF is considered a 'build' with a discount and is NOT considered as a 'conversion'; the assembly of any SAF does not consume any conversion capacity.

Supporting Rules:

---

Quote:

(520.0) SPECIAL ATTACK FORCES
These units include suicide freighters and troopships used to attack bases and planetary defense units.-SVC

(521.62) LINK TO SAFs: Special Attack Forces (520.0) include troop transports. If a player has an SAF, he can disband it and replace it with one FTL or two FTS troop ships. If a player is building an SAF, the cost can be reduced by removing one FTL (five points) or one (or two) FTS (two points each) which are in the shipyard hex, absorbing them into the SAF. It cannot provide both FTL and FTS ships. Crippled ships cannot be used.

---

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, November 09, 2018 - 10:06 pm: Edit

FEAR Concurs with above

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, November 10, 2018 - 02:03 am: Edit

Correct... SVC

By Dana Madsen (Dfm330) on Thursday, November 15, 2018 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Is a MON with CV pallet a carrier?

Specifically for purposes of 534 E & S Raids. Is a MON an eligible target for crippling a Size 3 ship, 534.223. The MON rules state that it can't be escorted, 519.23. So you aren't limited by the rule that says you can't attack a ship with escorts.

Or do you have to use 534.224 to attack it with an E & S raid where you attack it's fighters.

=================

Monitors are a bit of an odd duck. They are specifically listed as non-carrier groups under (515.437) and are not permitted to be escorted (essentially a non-carrier group on one ship); the same is true under (519.23). Monitors cannot react (519.35), enter the hex of the enemy (519.33), or be used in an approach battle (519.32). However, monitor assigned attrition units can react, and open/block supply paths, or be used in approach battles. In essence, monitors act much like a base when assigned attrition unit.

That said, FEAR and FEDS reviewed the E&S mission (534.223) "Cripple a ship" and (534.224) "Damage a carrier/PFT".

Under (534.223) it states: "A ship cannot be attacked if it has escorts, but the escorts could be." FEDS and FEAR have interpreted this to also mean that a ship CAN be attacked with an E&S raid under (534.223) if the ship has NO assigned escorts; this includes monitors and single ship carriers with no escorts.

In a like manner, under E&S mission (534.224), if a carrier or PFT is ESCORTED, then the attrition units of the carrier or PFT CANNOT be attacked by this E&S raid.

The key to understanding both these rules is the escorts: if any carrier or PFT has ESCORTS assigned, then no E&S raid can be used against the carrier and PFT; if any carrier or PFT DOES NOT have ESCORTS assigned, then an E&S raid CAN be used against the carrier and PFT.

FEDS AND FEAR have clarified the following:

A. Unless overruled by ADB, under E&S mission (534.223), if a carrier or PFT is ESCORTED, then the the carrier or PFT CANNOT be attacked by this type of E&S raid. In addition, a carrier or PFT CAN be attacked with this type of E&S raid under (534.223) if the carrier or PFT has NO assigned escorts; this includes monitors with carrier or PFT pallets and single ship carriers with no escorts.

B. Unless overruled by ADB, under E&S mission (534.224), if a carrier or PFT is ESCORTED, then the attrition units of the carrier or PFT CANNOT be attacked by this type of E&S raid. In addition, the assigned attrition units of a carrier or PFT CAN be attacked with an E&S raid under (534.223) if the carrier or PFT has NO assigned escorts; this includes monitors with carrier or PFT pallets and single ship carriers with no escorts.

FEDS SENDS

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, November 16, 2018 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Reminder, still need ruling to this follow-up question: By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, November 06, 2018 - 11:27 am: Edit

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, November 17, 2018 - 04:47 am: Edit

Ted: Ruling posted on your 6 Nov question.

- FEDS

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, November 17, 2018 - 11:15 am: Edit

Follow up to FEDS/FEAR's clarification regarding Dana Madsen's question on Thursday, November 15, 2018 - 09:38 pm.

I note that the FEDS/FEAR clarification specifically uses the word ship in the clarification of (534.223) and (534.224) regarding carriers and PFTs. What about unescorted large and small Aux Carriers, PFTs, and the ASCs? Note: large includes the jumbo and heavy versions of these type of auxiliaries as well.

WORDING FIXED ABOVE.

FEDS SENDS

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, November 17, 2018 - 01:18 pm: Edit

Chuck, thank you for your ruling. However, I do note a typo in your ruling you may wish to fix prior to its publication in a Captain's Log. Here is the text you used, with your typo identified in the italicized phrase:

---

Quote:

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 it 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 on hex in reaction movement.

---

FIXED (I hope )

FEDS

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, November 17, 2018 - 10:53 pm: Edit

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 Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 09:10 am: Edit

Richard, it is probably tied to the old escort rules and will need to be addressed fully when we do the update for combined ops where the Monitor rules come from.

That being said, E&S missions cannot happen against one of your new ships until you have gone through combat as they occur on your opponents turn against you.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 10:45 am: Edit

I should also note that you can't assign the escorts if the ships dont get into combat (as far as I can tell) prior to the upcoming E&S phase, and that also the requirement to track carriers and escorts as groups through entire turns up to the next E&S phase will require quite a lot of bookkeeping to avoid attacks by prime teams.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, November 18, 2018 - 10:52 am: Edit

Just stack them together for now, that is sufficient. Staff will have to figure out what to do with the rest of it in the future. There will probably be some changes with escort assignments with respect to timing and allocation.

By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Monday, November 19, 2018 - 10:27 pm: Edit

I would imagine that you would get an escort assignment opportunity at the beginning of raid phase, now. And those escorts would NOT be binding during combat phase and could be reassigned if the carrier ends up in combat.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, November 19, 2018 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Currently, under the Sequence of Play rules, any raid combat phase escort assignments are not binding into the normal combat phase.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, November 20, 2018 - 05:38 am: Edit

FEDS/FEAR: The following Q still needs an answer and is needed in a current game. Thanks

---

Quote:

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, December 18, 2017 - 08:23 pm: Edit

Q302.617 Can a rescue tug (537.2) be used to "save" the ship that is required to be killed under (302.617)?

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, November 20, 2018 - 05:49 am: Edit

Turtle:

The written rule is quite clear:

---

Quote:

(537.223) Ships destroyed by directed damage, or which are trapped in a web, cannot be rescued.

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, November 30, 2018 - 09:32 am: Edit

Q309.32 Does the word owner mean the empire owning the DB ship for the purposes of the rule quoted below?

---

Quote:

(309.32) COST: The owner must expend (during combat) 0.10 Economic Points per drone factor per Combat Round in which it is used in this role. A drone ship could use only some of its factors to reduce the cost.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, December 13, 2018 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Q304.5 Can the combined intensity rating blunt the effect of negative variable battle intensity rating roll?

Example: The Coalition player, over many combat rounds during a capital assault, has managed to bring the BIR to 10. The Alliance player picks BIR 1. While the combined battle intensity rating is 11, the maximum allowed is BIR 10.

However, does the VBIR apply to the higher number? For example, if the combined BIR is 11 and the variable roll of "1" is "-2" BIR, then the net BIR would be 11-2=9.

However, if the maximum *starting* BIR is 10, then the VBIR roll of "-2" BIR would bring the BIR to 10-2=8.

So, in the rare case that one player has forced the BIR to 9 or 10, does any VBIR subtraction apply to the higher combined BIR - or is the maximum BIR 10 before applying a negative resulting from rolling a "1" or "2" during the variable BIR?

Thanks.

Your answer is in the last sentence of (304.5). You apply the VBIR first then apply the increased intensity amount with a max BIR of 10. - FEAR

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, December 18, 2018 - 08:34 pm: Edit

(502.63) PFs on Planetary PDUs.

On a given empire's PF2 turn (502.612), all their original planets with PDUs get free PF flotillas on those PDUs (.5 flotilla per PDU) as per (502.63). PDUs on captured planets do not get free PFs as original planets do, but could get free PFs from the initial free PF allotment if all bases already have PFs.

If you want to put PFs on captured planets with PDUs during PF2 (that don't get free PFs as part of turn PF2; assume that all Initial Deployment PF flotillas are being placed on existing bases), do you have to pay to put PFs on those PDUs (for "mech links" or something) in addition to buying the PF flotillas? Or do you just have to buy flotillas for those PDUs?

For example, say the Klingons have 4PDUs on the Hydran capital planet in 0617. They don't have any free Initial Placement PF flotillas to put there (as they still have a lot of bases). To put 2PF flotillas on those 4PDUs, does it cost:

-6EPs for the 2PF Flotillas.

or

-6EPs for the 2PF Flotillas, plus something to upgrade the PDUs.

By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - 12:29 pm: Edit

(509.33) states the tug+pod combo is treated as one unit, but doesn't explain what happens to the (single-sided) pod when the (double-sided) tug gets flipped over due to combat damage.
I've poked through archives, but there are far too many mentions of battle tug or battle pod for me to parse out any relevant info.

---

Quote:

(509.43) CRIPPLED TUGS: On crippled tugs, the pods cease to function but are otherwise unharmed. Fighters and PFs on those pods could be transferred to other carriers/tenders in the hex between Combat Rounds and would be replaced normally. The Command Rating drops to the tug’s original rating. If a tug becomes crippled, the owning player may designate in the Retrograde Phase that it has sent its pods back into the fleet pod pool, or that it has kept its pods so that they will be available when it is repaired. Pods are never crippled and never require repairs. Pods which have defense factors add their defense factors to the tug (making the tug harder to cripple) but cannot be attacked or crippled separately. The pods on a Klingon CVT, being a permanent conversion, continue to function even if the ship is crippled.

---

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - 01:28 pm: Edit

Troy

Pods only work on an Uncrippled Tug - so it has no value on a Crippled Tug and the pod dies if the Tug dies.

By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Thanks, FEDS! (509.43) is exactly what I was looking for!

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, January 19, 2019 - 09:40 am: Edit

Q204.35 The Federation wishes to send a newly built escort ship to a carrier group in Kzinti space. The ship receives free strategic movement within Federation space because they are the owning empire. The Kzintis have used all of their free strategic movement to relocate their ships to more advantageous positions. The Federation escort is going to end its movement on a Kzinti base, but is not going beyond the Kzinti base in question and is less than six hexes from the base in Federation space it refueled in under (204.23). Does this require purchasing additional strategic movement under (204.35) and, if required, can the Federation pay for the extra point?

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, January 19, 2019 - 09:51 am: Edit

Q449.13

Can a ship which enters the WYN cluster to pick up funds from a WYNCOVIA account leave the Cluster on the same turn? It seems that a ship can't _both_ carry EP to and remove EP from the Cluster on the same turn, but what about a cargo-carrying ship that comes in empty?
(corrected typo)