The captain's Log files are in the other topic, no need to search these.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, July 05, 2019 - 10:54 pm: Edit

Ok, thanks.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Sunday, July 07, 2019 - 05:39 pm: Edit

A starbase in friendly territory is crippled and in a partial supply grid. It has an uncrippled friendly tug stacked with it. The question is whether or not the owning player could pay to repair the SB, assuming the EPs are available.

By (420.61), "a tug must be present in the unit's hex and be in supply". That last part is confusing. A ship stacked with a friendly SB in friendly territory is always in supply by (410.4). So why does the rule say "and be in supply"? Assuming the partial grid has enough EP for the repairs, it doesn't appear that the "be in supply" portion of the rule has any effect. But then why is it there?

Please clarify.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, July 07, 2019 - 05:46 pm: Edit

Relevant rules (note the reference to the second quoted rule below):

(410.4) EFFECT OF BASES
Units stacked with a friendly planet or base (e.g., starbase,
sector base‡, battle station, base station‡, stellar fortress‡) and
the base itself are always in supply regardless of whether or not
that base has a supply path. (Mobile bases are not self-supply-
ing.) This includes captured planets as long as a PDU has been
deployed there.
Exception: see (410.54) for bases in allied territory.

(410.54) BASED IN FOREIGN AREA: A base in allied or enemy
territory (or captured neutral territory) which is cut off from any
Supply Grid of the owning empire cannot provide supplies but is
itself in supply. This is an exception to (410.4).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, July 08, 2019 - 02:31 am: Edit

410.4 - Taken to Q&A Discussions - a formal Ruling would be appreciated though.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, July 08, 2019 - 05:41 am: Edit

REPAIR OF CRIPPLED BASES

---

Quote:

(420.61) PROCEDURE: To repair a crippled base, a tug must be present in the unit’s hex and be in supply. Repairs to bases are done only in Sub-Step 2A3 of the Repair Phase. The tug pays the full cost of one EP per Repair Point since only bases pay the lower rate.

---

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, July 08, 2019 - 06:51 am: Edit

Thanks Chuck

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, July 09, 2019 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Q703.0 from Fighter Operations 2016 update: On page 62 of FO2016 the Klingons receive (among other things) a free activation of one E4 from the Mothball Fleet during the Production Phase of Turns #1 through #3 (total 3). It is not clear if this free activation is (Case A) IN ADDITION TO the three allowed activation of E3s/E4s mentioned in the "mothball fleet" rules directly above, or if this free activation is (Case B) IN PLACE OF one of the three allowed activations. Which is it?

The difference:

If Case A is true, the Klingons may activate up to 4 E3/E4 ships. Specifically, the Klingons may activate up to 3 E3/E4 PLUS activate (for free) a fourth ship (an E4) on turns 1-3. The allowed maximum is 4 E3/E4 activations for total cost of 3 EPs, and one of those ships must be an E4 (the free one).

If case B is true, then the maximum E3/E4 activations is 3, and it is not possible for the Klingons to activate 4 E3/E4 ships on turns 1-3. Specifically, if Case B is true, then the Klingons may activate up to 3 E3/E4, ONE OF WHICH may be an E4 (for free). The allowed maximum is 3 E3/E4 activations, and optionally the Klingons may make one of those activations an E4 that is for free, thereby activating 3 ships for 2 EPs (one of which must be an E4 in this case).

Ruling respectfully requested.

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

From 703.0 FO2016 Pg61

---

Quote:

MOTHBALL FLEET: Add 3xE3, 6xE3A, 3xE4, 4xE4G. Activate three E3/E4 each turn in wartime only.

CONSTRUCTION: The Klingons receive a free E4A during the Production Phase of Turns #1 through #4 (total four). The Klingons receive a free activation of one E4 from the Mothball Fleet during the Production Phase of Turns #1 through #3 (total three).

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, July 09, 2019 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Follow-up question:

Q703.0: Klingon OOB in view of the updated FO2016 rules.

The same rule quoted above for the free E4 activation also states that the Klingons receive a free E4A during the production phase of turns 1-4. Does the FEDS ruling above also imply that the free E4A is *taken from regular production*?

In other words, is the free E4A IN ADDITION TO regular production, or is simply that one of the 3 E4s produced IN REGULAR PRODUCTION could be an E4A that is free?

Based on the above ruling, it would appear the free E4A is taken out of regular production.

Clarification or confirmation respectfully requested.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, July 09, 2019 - 06:00 pm: Edit

References:

---

Quote:

(703.0) Annex: CONSTRUCTION: The Klingons receive a free E4A during the Production Phase of Turns #1 through #4 (total four).

==========
(525.312) Klingon F6: One of the Klingon design bureaus created the F6 design (an enlarged version of the F5) in an attempt to improve the firepower of the fleet while using the smaller shipyards that produced F5s. The Klingon government authorized construction of a limited number of these ships for evaluation, but did not pursue production beyond that point. To reflect this, the Klingons receive one F6 at no cost on each of Turns #16, #17, #18, and #19. Starting on Turn #20, the Klingons may build one such ship per turn as a substitute for an F5W or conversion from an F5...

(525.311) Federation FFB: The Federation held a competition to design a new war destroyer. One design became the DW seen in the game. The other was a variant of the frigate which was not selected for general production. The Federation government authorized construction of a limited number of these ships as part of the design competition, but did not pursue production beyond that point. To reflect this, the Federation receives one FFB at no cost on each of Turns #14, #15, #16, and #17. Starting on Turn #18, the Federation may build one such ship per turn as a substitute for a DW or conversion from an FF...

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, July 09, 2019 - 08:49 pm: Edit

Ted: See above.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 11, 2019 - 11:25 am: Edit

Q542.16: What is the definition of the term "obsolete types" in this survey ship rule?

Clearly, the Federation CLS and the Hydran SR are "obsolete types" because the last sentence in this rule says so. However, the same sentence leads with "This includes...," hinting at the idea that these two types of units are NON-EXCLUSIVE to the list of "obsolete types?"

One could argue that an "obsolete type" of survey ship is any survey ship for which a given empire has a later YIS SR on their SIT for a given turn within a game. Thus, for example, in Y174 of the General War, the Romulan PE (Y166), SPS (Y170), KRE (Y170), FHC (Y171), FAS (Y171) would all be considered "obsolete typess" of survey ship relative to the FHQ (Y174) and QPE (Y174). However, in Y170, only the PE would be considered "obsolete" relative to the SPS (Y170) and KRE (Y170).

One could argue that a "strict reading" of 542.16 is that ONLY the Federation CLS and Hydran SR are "obsolete types," and thus may never be produced after the start of the General War.

Note there is a ruling that says that conversion is not a valid way to avoiding 542.16. There is a ruling that this rule "is a rule, not a ruling" when I asked about whether the PE is considered an "obsolete type" - but the Q&A did not actually answer the question asked.

I could not find an official answer which defines, absolutely, what "obsolete type" means with respect to 542.16.

Ruling respectfully requested.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, July 11, 2019 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Q534.244: If I perform the E&S mission to rescue a captured ship, the rules as written state that it moves to the nearest supply point in the rescuing grid.

After that happens, is the rescued ship eligible to use Operational Movement to get it out of harm's way? Can Strategic Movement be used for that ship?

These same questions can also be applied to rule 534.245, hijack an enemy ship.

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

Since E&S raids are conducted during the raid phase and the rescued ship is to be moved to the nearest legal supply node within six hexes without regard to supply status, blocking enemy units, enemy reaction, or pinning, then the rescued ship can assumed to be using a form of raid movement to return to friendly control.

Ruling: Unless overruled by ADB, ships rescued or captured during an E&S raids are assumed to have used raid movement rules to move to a legal supply node as required by the E&S rules. Since the object ship of the E&S raid moved during the raid phase, the object ship cannot use operational, or strategic movement during the E&S player's current turn.

FEDS SENDS

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, July 11, 2019 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Rob: See above.

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Friday, July 12, 2019 - 03:32 pm: Edit

Hello there. A couple of friends and I are starting a new F&E game. A couple of us haven't played each other in 7 years and the other guy hadn't played at all. I have been playing solo games. The question deals with combat, or damage determination to be specific.
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.
I guess that my question is where are the rules to support the combat system shown on the Damage index chart. I appreciate any help here. Thank you.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, July 12, 2019 - 07:26 pm: Edit

Q449.0

Let's assume the Lyrans have 6 EPs in their WYNCOVIA account, and the Klingons have 0 EP at the start of a turn. The Klingons didn't use their Trade Rights the previous turn, so now have 8 accumulated they can use.

The Lyrans transfer their 6 EPs to the Klingon WYNCOVIA account. So now the Klingons have 6 EPs in their account, and the Lyrans have 0 EP in theirs.

The Klingons then send a transport into the Cluster and withdraw one of those EPs. The Klingon account balance is now 5 EPs. The Klingons now want to take 4 of those EPs and basically re-deposit them back into the WYNCOVIA account in order to use up 4 of their 8 current Trade Rights.

Is this allowed? I'm thinking not per rule 449.133.

Ted, please clarify as needed, I may not have worded this all like you said before.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, July 12, 2019 - 07:49 pm: Edit

That's basically it. To use an analogy, the idea was to do a three-party transaction electronically at the bank between party A, party B, and the bank itself.

Since it's "just cash" it seemed to make sense when I first tried it.

However, in retrospect that violates 449.133 and because any ruling other than saying the above is illegal is tantamount to allowing both the Lyrans and the Klingons to deposit 4 EPs apiece and then just dedicate transport ships to collecting 2 interest each turn - which is clearly NOT the spirit or letter of the rules.

So, I confirm the question and also urge FEDS to rule that the answer to Rob's question is "not allowed."

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, July 14, 2019 - 08:25 am: Edit

Given that all of this went into Captain's Log can the F&E staff delete 90% of this please?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, July 14, 2019 - 12:24 pm: Edit

I am working on archiving posts, and will delete when finished.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Q302.733 (Special Sub-Priority 3E).

Does this rule mean that if fleet A retreats from a supply point P into a new combat hex C, then if fleet A retreats from the new combat hex, then fleet A may not use P as a supply point for determining available retreat hexes under priority 3 (302.733)?

Follow-up question: Does the answer change if the retreat that created the combat is a non-fighting retreat or a fighting retreat?


So, let's make it concrete. A Zin fleet is in combat in hex 902. There's a smaller Lyran fleet in 1001 (planet previously conquered), so priority 2 is not an issue. The closest Zin supply point, other than the starbase at 902, is the offmap area.

The Zin player elects to retreat from the battle at 902. Due to priority 3, the ONLY valid retreat hex is 1001. Thus, a new battle hex is created in hex 1001, and because priorty 3 required excluded all other hexes, the combat is considered a non-fighting retreat. (Fighting retreat only applies if the retreating Zin could have selected another "closer" supply point and is trying to avoid priority 4.)

The battle at 1001 is then fought. The Zin player wants to retreat again - this time BACK to 902. The Zin player says it's the only place to go under priority 3, as it a supply point at range 1 and the offmap is 2hexes away.

However, the Lyran player says priority 3E requires you exclude supply points in the same chain of retreats.

The Zin player replies that that priority 3E, per the wording of the rules, only applies for a chain of the same battle; i.e., only applies to fighting retreats.

Lyran player says that does not make sense, because whether a fighting retreat or a non-fighting retreat, the phasing player gets to decide the order of combats - and that means either type of new combat hex (FR, non-FR) can be selected after other battles have been fought. Therefore, the "chain of battles" seems to be a rules drafting ambiguity and no real limitation to fighting retreats is implied when applying priority 3E.

Accordingly, priority 3E excludes starbase 902 as a supply point, and the Zin player must retreat back towards the offmap as being the closest *valid* supply point.

It seems the crux of the dispute is what does "chain of battles" mean. Is it limited to the sequence in which battles are selected? Is it limited to a single fleet (set of ships) in a given half-turn? Something else?

Bottom line: We need to know what special priority 3E really means and how it would be applied to the example.

Ruling respectfully requested.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Side note, 1202 is also a valid supply point if Kzinti held …

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - 08:01 pm: Edit

It's not Kzinti held.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 19, 2019 - 10:07 am: Edit

Any progress on deletions here?

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, July 20, 2019 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Question on Diplomats:

540.29 describes how diplomats can multi-task certain missions.

540.23 discusses how a trade route can be negotiated and established with neutral races.

540.25 discusses how to negotiate a treaty for a neutral race on a planet to join an empire.

Considering 540.29: Is it possible to establish trade with the neutral planet under 540.23 while also attempting to negotiate a membership treaty 540.25? It is not explicit.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, July 22, 2019 - 08:32 am: Edit

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.

---