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".

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Friday, May 17, 2019 - 08:49 pm: Edit

Hello there, A couple of friends and I are about to start a new F&E game and haven't played in over 7 years, so I would like to clear up a rules question before it becomes an issue.
1. 413.441 states that if a partial supply grid is reconnected to the main supply grid it can send its remaining supplies to the main supply grid in the Economic phase. In this case the partial supply grid was the Hydran off map area. Am I correct in reading that if the opposing player can isolate the Hydrans off map area again so that it is a partial supply grid again that the Hydrans will not be able to collect his economic points from the off map area from both the current and the last turn during his economic phase of the turn?
2. 413.442 states that you can ship economic points into or out of a partial supply grid using rule 435.25. Is it possible to assign a tug an economic transfer assignment in phase 1-D, and then use that tug to transfer EP from your off map area during the Strategic Movement phase (using the 435.25 rule) even if your off map area was a partial grid at the beginning of your turn?

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, May 17, 2019 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Check 413.1, the off map grid is always a main grid. A partial grid is any grid not connected to the capital or off map area.

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Saturday, May 18, 2019 - 01:45 am: Edit

I apologize for not making myself clear. I was using the Hydran off map area as a partial supply grid because it would be cut off from the main supply grid by the Coalition ships. With my last game 7 years ago my opponent and myself had a disagreement about when the economic points would become available to the Hydrans after they were able to re-establish connection between the partial supply grid and the main supply grid.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, May 18, 2019 - 12:30 pm: Edit

An empire could have two main supply grids where one contain the capital and the other contains the off-map area...

---

Quote:

(413.1) DEFINITION

The Supply Grid is a network of bases and planets. It consists of a friendly capital hex (or off-map area), any friendly (i.e., same empire) bases or planets that have a valid Supply Route (six hexes or less) to that hex, any friendly bases or planets that have a valid Supply Route (six hexes or less) to any of those hexes, etc. As long as a base or planet has a supply path (an length, as long as there is a base or planet every six or fewer hexes along that path) to a capital hex (or off map area), it is part
of the Supply Grid.

There are two kinds of Supply Grids: Main (or regular) Grids are connected to the capital or off-map area; Partial Supply Grids are not and are covered by (413.4) below. In some cases, a given empire could have one Main Supply Grid connected to the capital, a second Main Supply Grid connected to the off-map area, and one or more Partial Supply Grids.

---

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Saturday, May 18, 2019 - 11:57 pm: Edit

Thank you for your answer Chuck, I think that the way that I worded my question was unclear though. What I'm trying to clarify is when would the economic points be available to the Hydrans after they reestablished contact between a partial supply grid and the main supply grid.
The reason that I am asking this question is that during my last game I was able to cut off the Hydrans off map area from his capital, turning the off map area into a partial supply grid. During his turn he was able to reestablish contact between his off map area and his main supply grid.
413.441 states that the EPs can be sent to his capital during his economic phase. Despite this rule my opponent feels that the accumulated EPs that are saved in his off map area are immediately shipped to his capital and will be available for use on his next production phase.
I read 413.441 to mean that if I can cut off his off map area again during my turn, before his next economic and production phase, that he will not have access to his EPs that had been stored up in his off map area because it is again a partial supply grid.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, May 19, 2019 - 03:41 am: Edit

Bill,

I think your answer is found in the expanded sequence of play.

Phase 1C3 - Transfer of EPs from a newly connected partial supply grid to the main grid.

Production is Phase 2B.

Here is the link for the current Master Sequence of Play.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, May 19, 2019 - 04:59 am: Edit

---

Quote:

(413.441) If a Partial Supply Grid is, at some point, reconnected with the main Supply Grid, it can but is not required to send its remaining supplies to the capital in the Economic Phase. These could be treated as a satellite stockpile (413.45). If sent back to the capital, no transportation is required; dedicated staff officers find the needed freighters to move the EPs. This also applies if a capital Supply Grid is separated from, and then reconnected to, the off-map Supply Grid.

---

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Sunday, May 19, 2019 - 10:44 am: Edit

Outstanding. Thanks for the clarification guys.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, May 20, 2019 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Question: FCRs and Heavy Fighters.

(530.121)"...A carrier with heavy fighter factors can accept replacements from FCRs; FCRs need not be designated as having heavy or standard fighters since efficient staff officers will make sure the correct type is available..."

When an FCR that has [6] fighter factors transfers those [6] fighter factors to a carrier that starts with 8H fighter factors, what happens?

A) The carrier ends up with 6H fighter factors (i.e. not a full squadron, even though the FCR generally has space for a full squadron of fighters on board).

B) The carrier ends up with 8H fighter factors (i.e. a full squadron, as the [6] represents 12 individual fighters, which would be 6 heavy fighters, which actually have 8 combat factors).

I can't find any rule that clarifies this.

Unless overruled by ADB, per (530.121), one standard FCR FACTOR [1] can replace either one standard fighter FACTOR (1) or one heavy fighter FACTOR (1H), (1V), or (1Y) unless specifically prohibited by rule.

FED SENDS

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, May 20, 2019 - 08:49 pm: Edit

See reply in Q&A Discussion

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 - 07:08 am: Edit

Q445.13 Is the cost of converting an existing base to a pacification base reduced by the cost of an existing FSD (445.31)?

(445.0), (544.45) and the subrules of (544.45) relating to base upgrades are silent on the matter.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, May 27, 2019 - 09:41 am: Edit

(530.222) Heavy Fighter change over and Romulan SPV.

The Romulan SPV is unique in that it is listed as having a 1EP conversion cost (changing 8 fighters on the SPB to 8H fighters on the SPV). Does this changeover/conversion require the SPB to be at a base and use conversion capability, or can you just pay 1EP and replace a SPB with an SPV anywhere on the map (like all other heavy fighter change overs)?

(I know there has been a lot of discussion over the years over this particular ship, and the costs have changed a few times, but I haven't been able to find an answer to this particular question).

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, May 27, 2019 - 01:20 pm: Edit

A somewhat rambling and inconclusive answer.

The SFB Master Ship Chart does have an SPV entry, but lists the product as "future," so no help there as to whether or not a V module is something other than a B module with different ready racks. The later situation being the case for almost all other conversions of carriers to use heavy fighters. IF the V and B modules are different, that makes it an actual conversion that would be done at a base, just like all other modular conversions.

Oddly, SFB R4.15 lists one of the valid fighter groups for a SPB as 6 heavy and 4 standard fighters, which would be 8H2 if F&E terms. No such F&E ship exists at this time, however.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Thursday, June 06, 2019 - 07:25 pm: Edit

Question re: (501.5) replacement fighters.

At the beginning of retro, a carrier is connected to the main grid. Retro movement cuts its supply lines. Therefore, by the time replacement fighters are received, the carrier is "in supply" in the sense that it was in supply as of its most recent supply check, but it is no longer connected to the main grid. If it matters, it retroed to an SB that was connected to the main grid as of the end of combat but is no longer connected after retros.

Does the carrier get replacement fighters or not? Players observers of my game seem pretty divided on the issue.

Argument that it does get replacement fighters: It was in supply and connected to the main grid as of its last supply check. Some observers are arguing that's enough.

Argument that it does not: The last sentence of (501.53) says "Supply is evaluated at the point in time where replacement fighters are being evaluated to the carrier."

Argument that maybe it does after all: Is "Supply is evaluated" the same as a supply check? The SoP doesn't mention a "supply check" for replacement fighters.

Answer: I have no idea! FEAR?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 - 09:14 am: Edit

Q511.573 Can a carrier group with all remaining ships in the group be attacked at the 2:1 rate if all remaining ships in the group are crippled at the time of the attack?

I assume that the normal GEDS (308.1) rules still apply here if there is an uncrippled ship as part of the group.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 - 12:23 pm: Edit

That's a little confusing, can you give an example of such a group, explicitly?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 - 06:50 pm: Edit

A crippled carrier group at a planet being attacked can be directed at 2:1 per (511.573), however if you mean a healthy carrier with crippled escorts then killing the group as a whole may be doable …

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, June 26, 2019 - 10:20 am: Edit

Looking at (540.21), does the 50% diplomatic bonus apply if the planet in question is annexed (whether by the DIP remaining on the planet or during the carryover period)??

Is the rebellion modifier a separate function (ie one can choose either the bonus or the modifier) or congruent?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, July 01, 2019 - 01:15 pm: Edit

Q(410.32) What is the attack factor of the fighter factors on three unsupplied Hydran NECs (they have all their fighters)? Is it 2 for each NEC, or do you add all fighter factors together first before halving and rounding? I cannot really be sure which on my own.

(410.32) ATTACK: The attack factor of unsupplied units is re-
duced to 50 percent of the value shown on the counter (round
fractions of 0.50 and up to the next larger number, those of 0.49
down to the next lower number). This reduction affects Phasing
and Non-Phasing units. The defense factor of unsupplied units is
not reduced. Fighter and PF factors also lose half of their attack
(not defense) strength. Maulers (308.4) can use their special
ability, but at the reduced effectiveness of an out-of-supply ship.
Scouts retain their capabilities but ships out of supply cannot
conduct two-hex Reaction Movement

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, July 01, 2019 - 05:08 pm: Edit

RBE, retain fractions until the total, then round (if necessary) …

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, July 01, 2019 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Never mind, the rule specifically says 'the counter', so one halves the factors on 'the counter' and rounds up. It does not seem that you total counters together in any way. I don't think this questions is valid now, the rules clearly answer it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 05, 2019 - 08:53 am: Edit

This bloated folder needs some mass deletions. I was under the impression that FEAR put everything in here, at least up to April or May, into Captain's Log already. Anything worth saving is already in captain's Log, right? No archive needed, right?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, July 05, 2019 - 10:12 am: Edit

Having these questions online is valuable, it makes searching for answers much simpler. There are a LOT of Captain's Log to search otherwise.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, July 05, 2019 - 10:37 am: Edit

I am working on condensing the files by year.