Archive through May 20, 2019
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through May 20, 2019
Ryan:
I think what ADM is asking regarding the Gorn is: could a BDD (DW) minor shipyard produce a DD? The DD is (mostly) just a BDD with part left out, just as the Lyran DD is (mostly) just a CW with part left out.
Jason,
That one, DD for BDD may be possible. It's never been ruled on.
That is what I was asking. I should have been more precise.
Hrmmm, another question, should the LDR MP shipyard also be able to build POLs? For the LDR, those are both warship hulls.
I think there's a rule somewhere that you can sub a POL for an FF?
You can sub a Pol for a FF- but only if they are the same hull type.
"By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, March 30, 2019 - 07:34 pm: Edit
Paul;
DW not allowed to sub for CW in a minor shipyard. DW is a differnt base hull.
The left/right sponsons of a CW/DW are a DD/FF respectively, which is why this is allowed. A CW yard isn't converting a DD to a CW but it did build all the parts for a DD when it builds the CW. "
I assume this is based on Star Fleet Battles information?
Sorry if this is getting more confusing but that doesn't make sense in F&E.
The DD is a DD(4) Hull Class and the CW is a CW(3) Hull Class - so I can't see why a Lyran DD can be subbed for a CW in a CW Slipway - clearly, it is a different hull class and so 450.18 states you can't do that.
If they should be able to do it, for what ever reason, surely 450.18 needs to state that?
i.e. the Rules states you can't - but in SFB 'Law' you can, which takes precedence?
I can't see any reason why the 'game' needs to allow more flexibility for some (and not for others) and in basis terms, adds a unit to the game (Minor Conversion Facilities) and then take away half the rule benefits of that unit (as we all know, some SFB 'Laws' don't transpose well to F&E - Maulers for example).
A Lyran DD can be subbed for a CW because the errata says it can. Direct statements to the contrary are counterproductive.
Unless overruled by ADB, a Minor Shipyard that produces a given hull ‘X’ may produce a lesser hulled ship “Y” if ship “Y” can be converted into ship ‘X’.
Non-exhaustive list of examples:
Lyran CW MSY may produce DD hulled ships;
Lyran DW MSY may produce FF hulled ships;
LDR MP MSY may produce POL hulled ships;
Gorn BD MSY may produce DD hulled ships;
Hydran DW MSY may produce HN/CR/CU hulled ships;
Klingon F5W MSY may produce F5/F5L hulled ships.
Thank you Chuck.
So, the Lyrans ALMOST capture a Kzinti CVL in my game with Sam Benner (rolled a 4 in pursuit for capture).
I was thinking, it'd be best to convert it to a standard cruiser (not 100% sure, but set THAT aside for now).
At first I thought it would cost 2 for repair, 3 for conversion to Lyran tech, and 2 to unconvert the carrier to a standard hull.
Do the rules force you to buy the fighter factors if you never intend to use it as a carrier? It would take two turns (I think) to finish this conversion at a normal starbase.
Now, in a 'what's really happening' sense, obviously the Lyrans could do it, they'd just leave the ship at the starbase for a full year and not put fighters on it, but would the F&E rules permit this?
(FEDS EDITED)
First:
The 2EP cost to unconvert carriers was changed years ago, but empires do pay double for conversions under (305.45) if it is a captured hull.
Second:
Quote:(305.23) OPTION 3: ...The new owner would have to pay for the fighter factors on a carrier.
(305.4) TREATMENT OF CAPTURED SHIPS
A captured ship will retain its original capabilities except in the following cases:
(305.42) CARRIERS: A captured Federation carrier listed in (302.352) would not have its special fighters but the nominal group. An SCS would have 6 fighter factors and 6 PFs if the capturing player had deployed SCS ships. An NVH would have 6 PFs.
Bottomline: Unless I'm missing something, captured carriers that are converted to one's technology, retain the ability to receive free (non-special) fighter replacements after they pay to add their own fighters.
*The cost is two points to unconvert, I think, because captured ship conversion costs are double.
*A captured Kzinti carrier (or any carrier) does not come with free fighter factors, pretty sure of this. The capturing player would have to pay for these. I'm pretty sure this has been ruled on in the past (after all, the Kzinti in this example are hardly going to send replacement fighters to a now Lyran owned ex-Kzinti CVL).
FEDS clarified his earlier post.
the ability to replace fighters isn't really a capability of the carrier. kind of awkward for that zin manufacturer to continue delivery of fighters, but you DO have to admire the commitment to their warranty.
Soren,
1) Regarding the Operational Bases (453.0)
Rule (453.3) of the Strategic Operations rulebook (year 2006) list a different EW chart for the OPB than the annex 761 in the consolidated order of battle file from 2009. Which one is right?
The rulebook or the more recent oob file?
I believe the Jun2009 OOB is correct for the EW question. Reasoning, OPB are essentially a mobile base that can move under it's own power. Also note that a Base Station has the same combat and EW factors as an OPB.
Thomas,
thanks for the hint.
I can see the reasoning.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein
From Q&A Sam Benner:
In my game with Richard, I have a large Hydran force up against the Hydran offmap in hex 0119, potentially going to be unable to retrograde to the capital. We both have forces in 0118 and 0117, and I have 2HN in 0218. There is no Klingon supply in range, but the Lyrans will be in supply in 0218.
Richard has 9 coalition ships in 0119: 3 Lyrans, 6 Klingons (2DD SC, D6 3F5 2E4). He has informed me that if he withdraws, he is capable of retreating to 0218 without it being a fighting retreat by choosing a DD as his flagship for the first combat round.
It seems clear that he is correct in this. However, I believe that if I do not oppose his withdrawal he must retreat according to the "force that produced the first retreating units", as (302.133) which requires the selecting of a flagship before the first combat round does not apply except in the case of an opposed withdrawal. If so, he must use Klingon retreat priorities as they are the dominant force in the fleet in every way (the selection criteria is otherwise unclear).
My question is this: am I correct in this interpretation of the retreat rules?
To preclude any claim that he could use split retreat priority, I'll bring up a scenario that was mentioned in previous questions on similar issues: split retreat priority off a withdrawal allows a force with a single allied out of supply ship to retreat in any direction (if the withdrawal is unopposed). If a largely Klingon force attempts to withdraw and is not opposed, it could retreat a single crippled Lyran ff in any direction it chose (assuming no supply), using split retreat priorities. As no Klingon forces retreat, the single retreat hex for the force when it later retreats must be the hex that the ff retreated to. While this isn't easily abusable (it requires an uncontested withdrawal, as contested withdrawals can never have a split retreat), it doesn't conform to the pattern of "you can't retreat wherever you want".
Some notes about withdrawals:
You can withdraw some forces, but not all, you don't have to subsequently retreat the remaining defending forces. Specifically from 302.1: "If the Attacking Player did not oppose the withdrawal, the Defending Player may retreat some or all of his ships and there is no pursuit"
Also, comment: There's nothing saying that given 3 Lyrans and six Klingons, that since the Klingons are the 'dominant force in a hex' that the Lyrans cannot provide a flagship, assuming that all applicable rules are followed.
A note about split retreats (a Klingon / Lyran force using Klingon priorities for this example), there can only be a split retreat in the case of a hex where it is legal for the Klingons but not the Lyrans (priority wise) _and_ there is a hex for the Lyrans to go to that is legal for the Lyrans but not the Klingons.
In the case of a force of Klingons plus a single Lyran FF that can retreat to any hex, then if the Klingons provided the last flag ship, the Lyrans cannot split retreat as it is legal for them to go with the Klingons if the resultant hex of retreat is also legal for the Lyran ship (its retreat priorities taken separately from the Klingons).
Note not to get confused. Split retreat is never mandatory. It is always legal for the Klingons in this case to take Lyrans with them regardless of the Lyran retreat priority situation.
I mentioned that because if there is a unopposed withdrawal, there is no last flagship and it's unclear which priority takes precedence. I imagine you're probably right that as the Lyrans can provide a legal flagship you can choose to use the Lyran retreat priorities, and we can probably proceed based on that. But that doesn't answer the general case.
I think this is one of the weird ones,..but as the rules go - correct.
Withdrawal before combat
DD and 3 x E4 say (50%) - Lyrans can go to 218 and Allied ships go with them
Combat(DD or SC Flag) - noting only 2 of the 3 remaining Klingons can fight.
Lyrans then retreat with Allied Ships going with them.
I'm talking about the situation where the withdrawal is not opposed, so there is no flagship designated.
I imagine that it will be resolved the same as if it was opposed, except that there is no battle.
Essentially, one of the three highest command rating units must be picked, and it must be possible for it to command a legal battle force (else it is excused from being one of the three highest command rating units).
I don't expect that a brand new rule that is different than the existing ways of determining flagships will be created, rather that it will be something in the nature of above, perhaps also with a note on what to do if NO ships qualify to be a flagship by the normal method, example
hex has allied Fed 2CC, Kzinti 2CC, Tholian 2CC, Gorn 2CC, Hydran 2LM, Orion Enclave 2CA where 5 ships must be on the line, but no empire can provide 50% of the ships on the line. :p
Pretty sure that got ruled on but I forget exactly.
This is NOT an official answer but...
In the extreme caseworks (like the above) where a tiebreaker is needed, then I'd be inclined go with excluding ships out of supply, then exclude ships farthest from supply. If that doesn't resolve it, then resolve it via die roll.
That seems a reasonable resolution. Richard has graciously allowed me to change the order of resolution of battle hexes so that only a third of the fleet is unable to return to the capital, so it's a non-issue for this game. Thanks!
Peter, the 6 represents a total of 6 fighter factors not a number of fighters, be they standard, heavy or Fed special (F-14, F-15). They can be anytype of fighter except F-111s which have special designated FCRs.