Archive through August 04, 2019
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A:
Archive through August 04, 2019
Rob:
Rule (308.252) is in reference to MULTI-SYSTEM BATTLES and does not apply to your case. The intent behind (308.252) is to prevent an abuse of going to a multi-system devastated planet and racking-up plus points to discourage pursuit.
Quote:(508.21) DEVASTATING: If the planetary defense units (not necessarily including their fighters or PFs, and not including the three-point residual defense factor which does not exist until a captured planet is liberated or ungarrisoned) are destroyed and an additional ten points of damage are scored on the planet (which can be accumulated over several combat rounds), the planet is “devastated” and its residual defense factor is destroyed...
No ruling is necessary as that is the rule.
Maybe no ruling is necessary, but you didn't quite answer my question Chuck. I do thank you for very quickly answering this question though.
So you are saying that a single ship can indeed re-devastate an already devastated planet, correct? It doesn't need to build up 20 damage points to do so, it can just do it assuming it is unopposed?
And in a multi system hex, the only way to re-devastate a planet is to direct on it. Is that also correct?
Under (508.214) and (508.252) any unit with offensive compot can re-devastate an enemy planet over a series of combat rounds until the enemy planet is devastated. The attacker simply allows the damage to fall and the defender must apply it to the only object that can absorb it: the planet. Once the damage accumulation on the planet equals ten points, then the planet is devastated (or re-devastated). Note that a legally present, single fighter factor could in theory devastate a planet using accumulation of damage.
As stated before, this is not a FEDS ruling, as it is the rule as written.
Note: Once devastated, the attacker cannot accumulate any plus points on a defenseless, devastated planet.
OK, fair enough thanks Chuck!
Are the effects of (539.41) from SO cumulative?
==================================
FEDS: Rule (539.42) seems to imply that using AWTs gives the Tholian player some recourse to maintain a web if the base is directed upon and destroyed. Using two or more AWTs in a battle force would also provide the same effect.
As to a cumulative effect, I would also say yes.
RULING:
Unless overruled by ADB, multiple Tholian web tenders can be used in a battle force with their (539.41) effects being cumulative so long as other battle force rules are followed (ie each AWT uses a command slot).
FEDS SENDS
I'm in no hurry, but I wanted to collate these still unanswered questions for FEDS and/or FEAR. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Ted:
In reference to "obsolete types" of survey ships...
As it stands now, the rule only speaks to those two ships. I know that is a strict reading of the rule but that's how ADB published it.
It is my opinion this rule was added to prevent abuse as players would simply purchase these less expensive survey ships over their more modern and more expensive successors. When we developed the advanced survey rules, all survey ships were created equal (much like scouts in basic F&E) with respect to survey rolls. Much like the evolution of EW in F&E, we might consider evolving the rule and add a die roll modifier (maybe -2) on the survey roll if using an obsolete ship when a more modern one is available.
What also may be needed in the future is a base hull production retirement date that prohibits any further production of an obsolete hull; this notation could be added to the notes section of the base hull ship or added to the end of the title line on the SITs. Such data would need to come from ADB first and I doubt of ADB will want to do such a thing. What we don't need is a RULE listing when and what is units are obsolete as we would be constantly updating it. Obviously, this is ADB's call on how they want to handle this issue.
FEDS
(306.0) Cloaked Ships
(306.0) says "Uncrippled ships with cloaking devices...which are in supply have the following options for combat."
To use a cloak in combat, does the ship in question need to be fully in supply at the time of combat (i.e. 6 hexes from a supply point), or do they need to be in supply via (410.22) Combat supply (i.e. if they were in supply at the start of the turn, they count as being in supply during combat).
For example, if a Romulan ship starts a turn 6 hexes from a supply point, it is in supply for the purposes of combat, regardless of what happens to the supply point during the turn or if the ship reacts to 7 hexes from the supply point. If it reacts to 7 hexes from the supply point, can it still use the cloaking device?
Q411.31: Can the Ships and/or bases of an unreleased fleet block or unblock supply in adjacent hexes outside of the fleet's deployment zone?
I am thinking not, since the unreleased ship and fighters from bases cannot react outside of their deployment zone. However, they CAN react within it. My thinking is that they cannot project any power into the hexes outside of their deployment zone, so they should not block or unblock supply.
Rules references:
Quote:(411.31) SHIPS: The Supply Route cannot pass through a hex adjacent to enemy ships unless the Supply Route hex contain s friendly units or is adjacent to friendly ships (including the ships being supplied). Note the distinct use of the terms "ships" and "units".
(411.34) NON-REACTING UNITS: Units (e.g., monitors from Combined Operations) which cannot react do not block (or unblock) supply in an adjacent hex. Fighters or PFs based on such a unit (not a PDU) could react and would block (but not unblock) supply.
(600.311) Unreleased fleets cannot use Reaction Movement to move outside of their deployment area, but can
react to enemy units outside of that area as long as they do not leave their deployment area.
I'm sure the answer is out there...
Look in the Discussions Chuck. I looked everywhere. If I missed an obvious search let me know, but I searched every possible relevant term I could think of. I even searched my PDF Compendium copies. Zippo.
Carry over -
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?
Q410.51 Do Survey Ships count as Homeless ships if they cannot trace a route to their home empire under (505.23)? Follow up, If a survey ship is considered to be homeless and supplied via (410.51) can it continue survey?
RULING #1: Unless overruled by ADB, Klingon survey ships in the Lyran leased off-map area are assumed to be supplied a Klingon base within this leased area. If the Lyran off-map is cutoff (which includes the Klingon survey support base) from a legal supply path to the Klingon capital, then, as part of the lease agreement, the Klingon survey support base can be considered a special, standalone partial supply grid to support of Klingon survey ships ONLY. While a special partial grid, the Klingons can accumulate economic points at the base under (413.455) and can fund survey supply under (413.41) with said economic points. Klingon survey ships cannot make survey rolls if unsupplied.
Rationale: All empires have the ability to have a base within their survey area to support on-going survey operations; rule (502.32) states that there is a Klingon base in within the Far Stars off-map leased area and that is enough evidence to make Ruling #1.
RULING #2: Unless overruled by ADB, homeless and expeditionary units cannot conduct any type of survey operation which includes, but is not limited to, on-map survey and high risk survey operations.
Rationale: There is no enabling rule that allows any survey operations to be conducted while a unit is homeless or as part of an expeditionary force.
FEDS SENDS
References:
Quote:(506.32) KLINGONS: The Klingons lease an off-map exploration zone from the Lyrans (505.3) or another ally if using (652.0). They cannot build bases, PDUs, or a capital in that area; it is for exploration only. They are assumed to have a base in this area which provides for Strategic Movement and for the accumulation of EPs.
==============
(413.455) No base or planet can hold a satellite stockpile of more than 30 Economic Points. Off-map bases and planets can hold satellite stockpiles.
==============
(505.23) KLINGONS: The Klingons can move their survey EPs home through Lyran bases and do not have to build bases in Lyran territory to do so. However, they must have a valid Strategic Movement path (using Klingon or Klingon-allied bases) from the Far Stars area to their capital.
===============
(413.41) ABILITY: Each Economic Point produced in a Partial Supply Grid can be used to supply up to five units, including up to twelve replacement fighters.
Can a Tholian planet or the Tholian capital planet support a web without a base being colocated?
Rule (512.0) states "All Tholian bases and their capital planet are surrounded by fields of energy known as webs." This is a bit more vague than if it stated "All Tholian bases, and their capital planet, are surrounded by fields of energy known as webs." [my commas addition] (511.12) states " the original starbases are with the first major planet in each system" which implies colocation and a shared web, and (511.21) states "The Tholian capital is surrounded by web (512.0)." which implies the planet has its own web independent of a base and contradicts the colocation from (511.12).
Rule (512.5) states "If the base is destroyed, the web disappears." This implies an answer of "no" to my original question, and the following statement of "There is a partial exception in the case of armed web tenders‡ (539.4)." is a function of AWTs (and their larger brethren I assume) and implies that without a web tender the web would dissolve around a planet without a base. Also, there are no conditions for forcing the dissolving of a web from around a Tholian planet without a base or web tender.
Rule (326.2) in Minor Empires twice states "At the conclusion of any battle round over a Tholian base OR planet ..." (my capitalization of "OR") which implies a Tholian planet can support its own web without a base or web tender present.
I have a few questions pertaining to the Grand Campaign.
651.1 indicates that the economic level rules of the Free campaign are to be used in the Grand campaign.
652.21 reads each empire announces its economic condition.
652.211 reads that the wartime status and economic conditions are not related which implies that an empire could be at peace with its neighbors but on a wartime economic condition.
Q1) Could the Gorn, Feds, Romulans, announce themselves to be on anything other than a peacetime economic condition prior to actual war breaking out? e.g. Turn 3 Roms announce wartime economics and collect 100% of their economy rather that 50%.
Reading thru these sections seems to imply that is the case as the example in 652.22 indicates that refers to Limited War.
Next issue refers to the Hydrans.
601.162 reads that the Hydrans on turns 1 and 2 are on a wartime economy for purposes of economic exhaustion but not at war.
Q2) Are the Hydrans then at a wartime economy where they receive all 74 points or do they only receive 50% of it?
This third question is kind of related to the first one.
Q3) If the Grand Campaign is being played,does 652 then override any of the individual scenario economic rules such as 601.162?
Last question referring to the last sentence in 652.212 implies in the example that conversions are allowed during peacetime when in around a dozen locations throughout the manual conversions are prohibited in peacetime. So as a clarification....
Q4) In the Grand Campaign, using the 652 economic ruleset, are conversions allowed for those empires at peace?
Thanks in advance for your responses 
This question is related to Andy Johnson's above question relating to economic levels for future belligerents in the grand campaign. After talking to Andy about the economic levels for each race before they go to war I noted that only the Federation and Gorns are specifically stated that they are on a peace time economy while at peace and that the Hydrans and Romulans are noted that they are at a wartime economy for later purposes of exhaustion but not at war while at peace. Section 652.212 states that an empire at peacetime economy collects at the 50 percent rate . Does that mean that the Hydran and Romulan empires collect money at the 100 percent rate then, and can spend it as noted on their pre-war schedule as well as on conversions?
(Detailed answers for Andy and Bill posted in Q+A discussion).
John C, remember that the Tholian capital is a Dyson sphere that's Mercurian orbit in size (~0.4AU radius) …
Stewart Frazier, I don't see the relevance. Either the Dyson sphere is too big to surround with web, or the star inside provides virtually unlimited power to sustain a web.
The rules are as I quoted, and my question stands.
John;
If it helps, according to SFU background, Dyson spheres are held together by web. This is part of the reason that the Seltorian web breakers are so devastating.
Adm, thanks but no. My question focuses on the rules and playability. Your comment, and Stewart Frazier's, make for discussion only.
In the 'F&E "Why" Questions' section I ask a question on a similar subject about the rules. I'm focusing on playability exclusively.
I've found what I think are rules contradictions and either a logic flaw and/or rules omission, all of which focus on web rules interactions with the Seltorians. Consider the following hypothetical scenario. A completely Klingon battle force is "in the web" and crippled after the previous combat round around the Tholian capital planet and SB after destroying the Tholian carrier group with all their inflicted damage points used as Directed Damage at the group with no plus points. Two Klingon ships were destroyed opening slots for 2 Seltorian FFs in the next combat round. As only 1 Seltorian FF can be directed upon, the remaining FF dissolves the web powered by the Tholian SB, and maybe the planet, allowing the surviving crippled Klingon ships to withdraw allowing a fresh Klingon fleet and 1 Seltorian FF to attack next round with no web able to be reestablished and allowing the cripples to be withdrawn. All of this is within the letter of the rules. Also within the rules is that if the K-S fleet directs on the SB and destroys it, over however many rounds, while maintaining 2 Seltorian units (so one may be destroyed ) to prevent web reestablishment, the web is dissolved and the Seltorian units are no longer needed.
I think that Tholian bases and PDUs/PGBs should have some "counts as X number of ships" value in rule (326.2). IMHO making this so would reestablish and reinforce the the game system's background continuity. The Seltorian BWs and AWs would still allow Seltorian victory in M81, and the Tholian bases/planet here would simply require more Seltorian participation here.
I have ideas about what the "counts as X number of ships" should be, but I'm not a game designer. I'll offer them if asked instead of volunteering them now out of respect.
I moved the above post to the discussion page where it now belongs.
Q(511.4) In my game with Sam Benner, it is Turn 2, Coalition. Kzintai, the capital of the Kzinti Hegemony has been devastated, activating all inactive fleets (in this case the Baron's and Marquise Fleet). On the alliance turn, can the Baron's Fleet, now being active move operationally onto the map, or must it still 'arrive at 1401 by strategic movement' as normal?
RBE:
Per (511.41):
Quote:(511.41) BASIC RULE: If an empire’s capital planet is attacked and devastated, any of that (attacked) empire’s units which are in any territory except their own or the territory of the empire (or alliance) that did the devastating [exception: expeditionary fleets (411.7) or homeless ships (410.5)] must return to home territory as soon as possible and cannot leave such territory while this rule is in effect. For example, the Hydran Expeditionary Fleet would not be required to return home if it were in Klingon or Lyran territory, but would if it were in Kzinti or Federation territory unless it had been adopted as an expeditionary or homeless fleet. Any inactive fleets are released immediately. For every ship out of authorized territory at the end of his player turn, the owning player must pay a penalty of three EPs.
No ruling is required as the blackletter of the rule is clear in this case: At the very moment of devastation of a capital planet, ALL unreleased fleets of the empire of the devastated capital planet are released including any inactive off-map fleets. So in the case you presented of the Baron's Fleet, any elements of this fleet could use operational movement to enter the map on the following Alliance player turn.
FEDS is unaware of any exceptions to (511.41.)
FEDS SENDS
*Walks in and notices there's an elephant in the room that no one seems to be talking about!
Q(Most SITS). Recently, the notes on most or all maulers were changed to indicate that they have an attack factor if not using their shock rating. Does this mean that in order to use their attack factor of 10 when NOT mauling, they must roll for shock? Or what, exactly? That seems to be what it means, but it's such a radical change from the old use of them (and none of the PBEM games tjat are reported on in these forums) seem to acknoweldge this change).
So to summarize, can we get an official statement as to the intent of these changes?