I don't think there is any specific rules section that provides what you ask.

That being said, the damage chart you speak of is just a tool to more easily calculate the damage percent during combat (it uses the 2.5% step table, not the one in the basic game with 5% increments). If you use it properly, the results are the same as if you follow the rules.

If you AREN'T getting the same results, then probably something is wrong in how you are interpreting the rules.

It may be in such a case that looking at the most recent sequence of play chart will help.

(I am not an official answer guy and this is not an official answer).

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Friday, July 12, 2019 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Thanks Richard, I think I found my own answer, part of it at least. I see in 302.3X that if you are using the Advanced Battle Intensity rules from section 304 that you determine the BIR first before proceeding to step 4. and that seems to support the Battle Index system. Thank you

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 12, 2019 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Bill wrote:
>>Now for the last 7 years I have been using the Damage index chart that is on the Large hexed map and some of the newer fleet charts that says to add the defender BIR, The attacker BIR, variable BIR, subtract the EW shift, add any other adjustments, and add the die roll. You then use that number to determine which percentage modifier to use on the chart. I've found this very easy to use.
One of the guys that I'm gaming pointed out though that according to rules 302.4 and 304 that this is not how damage is obtained. Rule 302.4 states that both players roll a die after determining the attack factors of their battle force. Any modifiers that apply are taken into account, such as EW shift. Rule 304 then states that both players choose a BIR Between 1 and 4 and then a variable BIR is obtained and added to the total of both players combined BIR. >>

Yeah, I'm not 100% sure what the difference being detailed here is, but to expound on what Richard wrote:

1) There are two different combat tables. The basic game has a combat table that has 5% damage results, and is a big 6x11 chart of results, where the side is the BIR, and the top is the die roll, and you cross index the die roll with the BIR total, add or subtract any modifiers, and then get a damage result (that will be a multiple of 5%). This is the original chart, and works fine if you use it, but is slightly sub-optimal, as most of the lines are, like, "20%, 25%, 25%, 30%, 30%, 35%" so damage isn't that granular, and you also need to look at the chart (or have it memorized) to determine damage.

2) There is an Advanced combat table that breaks down by 2.5% damage results (i.e. a line looks like "20%, 22.5%, 25%, 27.5%, 30%, 32.5%"). So damage is more granular, and has the advantage of being something you can figure out in your head if you know a few key values and how the chart comes up with numbers. The Advanced combat table sometimes is printed in the same 6x11 grid, and in some places, it is just printed as a list of numbers like:

1: 10%
2: 12.5%
3: 15%

etc. up to:

16: 50%

Both charts and systems work the exact same way; it just loos different.

With the 6x11 chart, damage is determined as such:

a) Each player secretly selects a BIR between 1 and 4.
b) Reveal, add the BIRs together.
c) Roll for Variable BIR (VBIR), and adjust BIR as appropriate.
d) Both players roll a D6 and get a number.
e) Cross reference the D6 result with the BIR on the chart. Add or subtract any modifiers. That is your damage result.

If you are using the 1-16 list of damage results, you are essentially doing the same thing, and getting an identical result to the 6x11 grid, but slightly differently:

a) Each player secretly selects a BIR between 1 and 4.
b) Reveal, add the BIRs together.
c) Roll for Variable BIR (VBIR), and adjust BIR as appropriate.
d) Both players roll a D6 and get a number.
e) Each player adds the number they roll to the adjusted BIR, and then adds or subtracts any modifier. That will be a number between 1-16 (well, it could be zero in theory, but you stop at 1). That number has a damage result.

Both of these systems have the same ned result in terms of damage done.

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Friday, July 12, 2019 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Thanks Peter. I tried to explain that both systems would produce the same result, but had no way to prove it. I started reading the Master Sequence of play after posting my question when I came across section 302.3X that stated that if using the Advanced Battle Intensity system from section 304 that you obtained the BIR first where as in the basic rules you determined the BIR last. So that should help. Anyway, thank you for your help here.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, July 14, 2019 - 04:42 am: Edit

Wyn trade comment

449.13 and 449.133 I think covers it pretty well.

You send Ep's into the Wyn - they get deposited and next turn the Ep's can be picked up and delivered to a delivered to a different stockpile.

You can't ping pong in and out of the Wyn cluster on the same turn in movement to deliver/pick up the same Ep's without dropping them off somewhere else first.

Basically, the Wyn will not re-buy the Ep's they just enhanced

By Sören Klein (Ogdrklein) on Sunday, July 14, 2019 - 07:15 am: Edit

Regarding the Battle Intensity Rating:

I understand that the charts expect damage rolls from 1 (10%) to 16 (50%).

Is there any mention about how it is handled when the damage roll falls below 1 or exedes 16?

By the rule the damage roll formula is:

Attacker BIR + Defender BIR +/- VBIR +/- EW +1d6

But there are some occasions were other modifiers came into play:
Admiral efficiency and cloaked attack

If my math is right the minimum damage roll possible is:

Attacker BIR: 1
Defender BIR: 1
EW: -2
VBIR: -2
1d6: +1
Inefficient Admiral: -1
Enemy attacked cloaked: -1
Total roll = 1+1-2-2+1-1-1 = -3

Maximum damage roll possible:

Attacker BIR: 4
Defender BIR: 4
no EW disadvantage: +0
VBIR: +2
1d6: +6
Efficient Admiral: +1
enemy failed cloaked attack: +1
Total roll = 4+4+0+2+6+1+1 = 18

Do I misread some rules or is my math possibly off?

If not, how are these situations handled? I mean other than one player throwing all counters overboard, cursing and screaming.

The issue came up, when I built myself an excel sheet that should calculate automaticaly the damage scored. Right now my formulas count any result higher than 16 as a 50% damage roll.
Any score below 1 would be treated as 10% damage.

Any advice?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, July 14, 2019 - 08:43 am: Edit

The charts give them minimum and maximum damage percents ie 10% and 50%. Totals of less than one are treated as 1. Totals of more than 16 are treated as 16.

There are more moderators than those listed, for example ISC echelon effects or SWACs.

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Sunday, July 14, 2019 - 10:10 am: Edit

It's not that simple, is it? You can't have a BIR higher than 10, though when attacking a base you can increase it every 4 rounds. Simply adding that to the roll doesn't work out properly.

By Sören Klein (Ogdrklein) on Sunday, July 14, 2019 - 01:29 pm: Edit

Richard,

fair enough. Thanks for the advice.
I guessed so from the charts though rule 304.2 only adressed the Variable BIR (302.3) and the increased BIR during base assaults (302.5) as possible modifiers for a max BIR of 10. But it does not mention any other modifiers or a fixed BIR range from 0 to 10 (plus the 1d6 die roll).

Maybe somewhere in the rules for advanced EW and Admiral Efficiency there is a paragraph hidden that imposed a limit on how far they could decrease or increase the BIR/damage roll but I could not find anything.

My earlier formulas were faulty as they treated the damage charts as a linear function and added or substracted 2.5% of damage for any roll below 1 and over 16. It is now working correctly.

Thanks and

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Sören Klein (Ogdrklein) on Sunday, July 14, 2019 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Sam,

I do think, it is that simple if the BIR has a fixed range from 0 to 10.
I simply thought the rules were a little vague on that matter hence my question.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Monday, July 15, 2019 - 01:48 pm: Edit

Hello there. My friends and I are getting ready to start a F&E game next month and are trying to clear a few things up before we start.
1. I would like to say that the Order of Battle sheets that I downloaded from the F&E play aids are great. They have most of the stuff that I need right there without having to search all of the rule books. However the Gorn Order of battle sheet has a small section titled "Further Peacetime Construction with Peacetime Economy." It shows a spring and fall construction schedule just for the Gorn 2nd and 6th fleets. It's on the first page second column right under 706.212 Pre-War Construction Schedule. We have no idea what this is for. There is no rule section cross referenced, and none of the other Order of Battle printouts for the other races have this on them. Could someone help me with this. It has us all scratching our heads.
2. I also seemed to have noticed a conflict in the rules. Section 652.212 in the main rule book the last sentence in this section seems to indicate that a player could, while at a peacetime economy, only build some of its pre-war construction in order to use the money converting as many ships as possible into scouts or carriers or maulers or whatever. On the other hand section 431.42 states that Empires not at war have specified Pre-War Construction. These Empires cannot substitute or convert ships on this schedule, nor can they add ships to the schedule. This section does state that ships can be canceled to raise money for specific purposes, such as Orion bribes any unspent money is lost.
It seems to me that sections 431.42 and 652.212 conflict with each other. Could someone please tell me what it is that I'm missing? Thank you all for your time.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, July 15, 2019 - 02:15 pm: Edit

Generally you cannot alter prewar construction. Those things are for games where for whatever reason the players decide to do something different, such as allow a power to go to war early or perhaps if the Federation gets activated early (due to a Hydran expedition) or if its a free campaign where you do use the production schedules but are free to go to war when you want, with whom you want instead of the historrical schedule.

Setting aside certain expansion rules, if playing the standard general war scenario, you cannot change pre war construction, do not collect EPs for pre war turns, are unable to cancel constrsruction to get EPs during pre war turns or do conversions or anything else, except where explicityly stated otherwise in the rules.

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Thanks Richard. I appreciate the clarification on the Pre-War construction. Was I mistaken in seeing a conflict between rule sections 431.42 and 652.212?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - 01:17 pm: Edit

I did misstate my opinion slightly, you CAN do conversions, but generally those need EPs which you generally don't get in peacetime. I know diplomacy can get you EPs to do it, if you are using that expansion. In such cases, some empires get opportunity to do useful conversions, extra survey ships seems a popular choice for the Gorns/Romulans.

(652) Is the rule for a Free Campaign which is more specific a rule than 431. It generally does not apply unless you are actually playing a Free Campaign. In a few cases it may provide an idea of what to do in unusal circumstances, such as a Federation activation by the Hydran expedition on the alliance portion of turn six (ie you get 50% EPs minus whatever was needed to purchase the PWC of that turn).

If things are unclear, it is best to cme up with a non-weird compromise or to go to Q&A. Beware of bad worrding when making a case on Q&A.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 19, 2019 - 10:06 am: Edit

Any progress on deleting a thousand or two posts from this topic?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, July 22, 2019 - 09:38 am: Edit

Ronrer Padilla posts in Q&A

Q508.21: It is clear from this rule that an undevastated planet could be devastated by a single enemy ship, if there we no other friendly units remaining in the hex.

What is not clear is could that same single ship RE-devastate thsat same planet again on a later turn if the same conditions were met.

So for example, the Lyrans attack deavstated Kzinti planet 1001. It was devastated on a previous turn. There are no friendly units in the hex, only the RDF. The Lyran player wishes to redevastate the planet, then withdraw from the hex, as the other battle currently in hex 902 will see a Kzinti fleet retreat over it if it stays.

The question is, can that single ship just keep doing damage to the planet until it has scored enough damage to redevastate it?

The problem comes from the folllowing rules, that seem to say this is not legal:


Quote:
(508.213) A planet could be devastated by Directed Damage (to reduce its production) and then left in the possession of the original owner. This is often the case when the attacking fleet lacks the power to destroy all ships and bases in the hex (meaning it cannot capture the hex) but wants to reduce the planet's economic production.

(508.214) A devastated planet can be devastated again (by the enemy), which would restart the time period required for recovery. A player cannot voluntarily re-devastate his own planet to absorb damage points.

(308.252) If there are no defending units in the battle (which could happen with an undefended devastated planet in a capital system), there can be no +/- points added, accumulated, or resolved.


So looking at those rules, it would appear the defender of a currently devastated planet cannot take damage on the planet, and the attacker cannot accumulate the necessary plus points in order to direct on the planet to redevastate it. This does not seem to make a whole lot of logical sense considering a single ship CAN accumulate the necessary points if the planet was not already devastated.

So in short a single Klingon E3 could devastate a planet, but it could not re-devastate a planet. If it can do the first, why can't it do the second? And is directed damage the only way a planet can be re-devastated?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, July 22, 2019 - 09:44 am: Edit

You can re devastate an ENEMY planet s many times as you want (as long as it is in a battle hex and uncaptured by the devastating player)..

However, a captured GARRISONED planet cannot be devastated by the garrisoning player as it is not a battle hex.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, July 22, 2019 - 10:27 am: Edit

If a planet is undefended by ships* (or fighters reacted in), bases or PDU/PGBs - a single ship will capture a planet - irrelevant to it be devastated or not.

* Including all those weird non-ship units etc

About the only weird aspect is that a crippled ship can't capture the planet - so in effect each turn it would recapture it at the start of combat and it would rebel at the end of the combat phase.

The issue about defenders to stop them redevastating it is basically to just stop the defender applying damage - when there is nothing to destroy.

The attacker can devastate a devastated planet to reset recovery/destroy PDU's being set up.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, July 22, 2019 - 11:14 am: Edit

Crippled ships can capture and garrison planets. I've never found a rule stating (or implying) otherwise, and I've looked. If you aware of a CONCRETE example that states otherwise, I'd like to know of it.

Note that devastating a planet requires a battle, which can only occuer in a battle hex.

Note that a captured planet is not a battle hex just by the fact that it is captured, and even if a captured planet IS in a battle hex, it cannot be deastated by either player (the original owner or their allies cannot devastate it, and the currently possessing player cannot devastate it).

A captured planet (for example) continually garissoned by a qualified unit does not repeatedly become 'uncaptured' requiring devastation and recapture or anything like that.

(also note that durring op move, it is not required to have an enemy ship on it during all of op movement, just at the beginning and end of op moves).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, July 22, 2019 - 11:44 am: Edit

Rules are at home...(and I am in my office!).

Might be switching the province garrisoning rule and planet rule over? (or just mad).

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, July 22, 2019 - 12:25 pm: Edit

Richard,

The question is HOW can you re-devastate an enemy planet? The rules appear to only give you the directed damage option. Which means you need to score 20+ points of damage to be able to do that. Hence a single ship, or small squadron of ships cannot generate enough damage points to do this. So you can have these two scenarios:

1) A single ship and an un-devastated ENEMY planet are in the same hex. There are no other units in the hex. The ship, over several turns, builds up damage on the planet until it becomes devastated. The ship then retreats.

2) A single ship and a devastated ENEMY planet are in the same hex. There are no other units in the hex. The ship cannot accumulate plus points in order to get to the magic number of 20 to be able to re-devastate the planet, and the planet's owner cannot take any voluntary damage on the already devastated planet. The ship eventually retreats, leaving the planet in enemy hands. The recovery clock is not reset since the planet was not re-devastated.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, July 22, 2019 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Case 2 above.

If the planet's owner has no units except for that devastated planet, then he must *involuntarily* take the damage points.

In other words, if you have a devastated planet AND other units, the planet cannot 'volunteer' to take the damage instead of the other units (generally). But if there is only the planet, it takes the damage involuntarily.

Generally, when one is making arguments that seem to end up with nonsensical results (such as seemingly being unable to damage a planet), perhaps it is time to step back and try to think of the larger picture and what one is doing wrong, instead of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, July 22, 2019 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Richard...for once I am right!

508.23 - Garrison -

Crippled Ships and ship equivalents of fighters 'do not count as garrisons'.

So they can capture - but can't garrison (not even 2 of them).

1 ship or PDU per planet is required.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, July 22, 2019 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Thanks Paul, I have felt weird about using crippled ships that way but could never find that rule. I've been using crippled ships to garrison provinces, do you know of any rule to disallow this?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, July 22, 2019 - 03:02 pm: Edit

I think you can use crippled Hulls for provinces.... as it states 'unit'.

I think the 'game' issue is that you lose a lot of cripples as they can't react into adjacent hexes

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 22, 2019 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Rob wrote:
>>So in short a single Klingon E3 could devastate a planet, but it could not re-devastate a planet. If it can do the first, why can't it do the second? And is directed damage the only way a planet can be re-devastated?>>

I'm confused as to why you would *need* to redevastate the planet. Planets don't start to recover from devastation till they are liberated:

(508.211) "If a devastated and captured planet is liberated...will begin the four-turn recovery period."

You devastate and capture a planet. As long as the planet is occupied, it does not start to recover. Once the planet is liberated, it starts to recover, which takes 4 turns if it was devastated on this same turn, or if it was devastated 10 turns ago.

Like, perhaps I'm missing something important, but why would you need to redevastate an enemy planet that you are currently controlling?