@Peter: Check out SVC's comments over in the SIT folders. Apparently most maulers have a non-shock rating of 0, and this is not a mistake.

Also, apparently, it changes our understanding of 308.42, which explicitly requires the shock roll in the case which the mauler is used for directed damage.

To be fair, it's not technically a rules change. One can include a mauler on the line, even though it contributes no compot, and because it was not used for DD you don't have to roll for shock.

However, in every game F&E I have ever played for 30 years I have never met a player (including myself) that thought a mauler had to roll shock if it used it's compot at all.

So, practically speaking, this is a change to the way the game is played. It's a small crimp for the Coalition, again practically speaking.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 10:16 am: Edit

Best guess it's a miss print/incorrect note, as we have three types of Shock Rules

1) Maulers - Provide full compot and roll for Shock if they Maul a target (and only get reduced compot if they don't have the two consorts - rules not with me, can't remember if they can maul if they don't have consorts, but at their lower value???)

2) Maulers - Provide full compot (if with consorts) and don't roll for shock if they don't maul

3) High Power Ships - have two ratings, rating A is higher than rating B and they have to roll for shock (on a 6???) if they use the A rating Compot value. If they use their B rating Compot Value - no roll is made.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 10:22 am: Edit

@Paul Howard: Not a misprint. Go read SVC's comments over in the SITs.

While technically it is not inconsistent with the rules, it certainly is a big change to me. Until those SITS were updated the *implication* of 308.42 is that a mauler can use it's compot and not shock so long as it does not use DD.

However, if you read 308.42 very carefully, it does not *REQUIRE* either 1) the full compot can be used without shock or 2) using the full compot does not result in a shock roll. It only says that if you use DD, you roll for shock.

In my mind that's splitting some pretty fine hairs, but whatever. If SVC is correcting a impression, even one that is 30 years old, that's his prerogative.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 10:27 am: Edit

Yeah, I remember us talking about this when the SIT note came up, and I don't remember ever getting an official response (although it is possible the SVC note was posted and I never noticed). It is certainly essentially a practical rules change, if not necessarily a radical one.

I'm totally ok with maulers having zero attack value unless they roll for shock, but I'd like for this to be consistent (i.e. all maulers have zero attack value, unless they roll for shock) and explicit in the rules (and not sort of vaguely implied, and then there be shock notes on the online SIT). Which, as far as I can tell, isn't quite the case yet?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 12:35 pm: Edit

MMMmmm…

Well I have just looked at the SIT's and that's what it says - and it does contradict 308.42.

So as it stands...

Either

Don't include a Mauler in your line.

or

Direct on a Target to get 'full value' in exchange for the risk of shocking**

As either it's a target itself and provides 0 compot - or it will roll for Shock.

** It's possible that a bad roll might result in it NOT being possible to direct on any target, but you included the compot.. (a low roll and enemy is owed points - I can see at say 15%, 80 compot only getting 12 damage and with 6 owed, that's down to 6 damage... so you get some value of including it's 7 or 10 (or 12+ compot for a DN mauler) compot!


Edit - Just read SVC's latest comment in Q&A - and I am totally lost now.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 12:47 pm: Edit

Actually I think it's different than that.

The way this is reading to me is that when you build a Battle Line including a Mauler, you are either choosing to use the mauler's ability right then and there, OR you are not and it contributes nothing to the Offense. So you only get it's full Compot if it is mauling. Any other use results in it being a big fat Offensive Compot of 0.

You either shoot it, or you don't. There is no third option where it contributes Compot.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 12:58 pm: Edit

Well, the rules don't say this, and keep in mind that F&E is based on SFB. SFB trumps F&E generally and in SFB you can certainly contribute weapons fire to a battle with a mauler without actually using the mauler cannon, ie an STK could fire overloaded disruptors, fire phasers and ram a target with ESGs or a Firehawk mauler could anchor three enemy ships and then launch shotgun plasma Fs at them after first using up pseudo S torps to soak up their phasers.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Rob -That's what I was saying...clearly less clearly though!

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 01:19 pm: Edit

I would hope a drastic weakening of maulers, if planned, would be balanced by a drastic weakening of the Alliance somewhere.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 01:25 pm: Edit

I would not call it a drastic weakening of maulers.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Yeah, this is not at all a drastic weakening of maulers. It is a modest, downward tweak of maulers--like, 90% of the time that maulers have been on the line, historically speaking, it is safe to say that they have been used to maul. The other 10% of the time, it is likely that they probably could have just been left off the line all together, and nothing terrible would have happened.

The big issue here, however, is that:

A) This is essentially a modest rules, uh, re-interpretation (?) that should probably be clearly spelled out somewhere, and not just a tweak on the SIT (for example, looking at the 2K10 rulebook, there is nothing that would indicate that a mauler has 0 attack value if it does not roll for shock, either in the mauler rules, *or* on the SIT).

B) It has strange interactions with other rules about maulers that Ted brought up in Q+A--if you have 2 maulers on the line, and one chooses to maul and roll for shock, and has full attack value, and the other chooses not to maul and not to roll for shock and has 0 attack value, why is there a rule about randomly selecting which mauler to direct?; does a mauler need to roll for shock if it is used for ship capture bonus in pursuit?

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 01:52 pm: Edit

In the few games of F&E I've played, I can't recall anyone including a Mauler in a battle line and not Mauling. But to comment on a few points that I've seen: Maulers have noticeably increased COMPOT from regular ships. So the idea that you should be able to contribute that COMPOT without actually using the Mauler is a non-starter for me, yes some phasers and ESG could be used to cause some damage, but not *more* damage than a comparable ship-of-the-line, especially looking at SFB.

Proposal for a house rule: Maulers can participate in the battle line without a shock roll at 1/2 COMPOT.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Sometimes I stack a few maulers in the line to increase total compot without mauling (or even with).

Sometimes I go a low BIR (say over Hydrax) and the Hydrans do for whatever reason, and the VBIR does not allow mauling.

So I've seen it happen, if not very often.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 02:43 pm: Edit

Oh, sure. Like, I certainly have used maulers on the line without mauling; a scratch force with a low BIR, or some weird small skirmish, or having multiple maulers on a line, where only 1 mauls and the other one or two just are 10 point battle cruisers. It certainly happens once and a while.

But in reality, I still suspect that 90% of the time that a mauler is on the line, it is going to be mauling.

And still, I don't remotely think this is a *bad* rule (i.e. maulers get 0 compot if they don't roll for shock, regardless of what other factors are involved). I *always* think maulers could stand to be less useful, and this is a good, not wildly intrusive way to do that.

But I still think that this is a not insignificant change/adjustment/interpretation/whatever. And I am yet to see it actually directly commented upon in, like, a Captain's Log or official ruling statement or anything. Which is something that I'd like to see happen.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Concur this is a modest downgrade of mauler capabilities. Most of the time you put a mauler on the line when you're going to use it as such. It will have a minor effect on the net compot of Coalition lines, but it is minor because ordinarily you don't risk a mauler to DD unless you're going to use it to DD yourself.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Did you guys actually read what I posted? Clearly not.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Hi SVC

Sorry - I think we all are unsure 'what' the answer was - we have a rule which says 1 thing and the SIT saying another.

We don't want to assume anything

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 05:48 pm: Edit

And yet you all assumed everything. Sigh.

Even I don't know why the SIT says that, but I have a suspicion. I do know it's not a cloning error because I do those like this: "Non-shock attack factor = N." and then go back and change N to the real number. If there is a real number, I did it deliberately, which doesn't mean it was wrong or right, it just means I meant to do it. Sometimes when a human being does something, he means what he said but what he said was incorrect.

Okay, where are we?

We have a years-old SIT note nobody noticed until yesterday.

We have people who forgot the "click boom rule" which means "if it creates a bunch of line items then talk to SVC before you post them."

We have, or don't have, a note in the "change list" that explains when it was done and why. The way it probably happened there will be one note somewhere (not one for every mauler) so go check the change lists and see if you see anything about it.

Then check that rule number in the "caplog rulings" posts to see if maybe there is a note changing the rule.

In the meantime, I asked Petrick who said "the F&E rule has always been wrong, the mauler is most of the ship's firepower, a D6M could not contribute more than 2 attack factors without firing the mauler and if it fires the mauler it rolls for shock, period, end of sentence."

So the original (maybe changed? maybe not?) rule is disconnected from SFB and probably will have to be changed, but maulers would probably get ratings of 2 not zero (case by case, might be 1 or 3; single-tooth lion might be higher).

So quit wasting time speculating. Do the research to find the change note and find or eliminate the possibility of a caplog ruling.

Then we'll talk. Until then, you're wasting your time because wherever this mess stands right now is wrong.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 05:52 pm: Edit

I noticed the rule at least a year ago (when I started a game with Byron Sinor called The Kitchen Sink) and made some sort of attempt to find out what was going on.

Life events at the time and since then have muddled my memory of that time period and have otherwise greatly interfered with things that I've been doing and am doing.

This whole thing started a few days ago when I realized that the SIT still had the note and asked what was going on with it (and seemed to get an answer from Chuck).

Anyway, I hope to see a resolution to this now that it's been brought forward. Thank you for your help with this, SVC.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 06:27 pm: Edit

Yeah, I was asking about this same thing about a year ago. Nothing ever came of it. I'm 100% ok with it being an actual rule. I'm 100% ok with it being a weird error. I'm good with whatever. I just would like to see a definitive answer :-)

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 12:12 pm: Edit

Sam - replying here...

"When conducting a partial retreat, must a carrier group all retreat together? Does this still hold in the case of a single ship carrier whose escorts retreat?

If the group retreating contains an FCR, can the FCR stay and later join up with another group? If you retreat the carrier, can you put the escort on the line as a regular cruiser? "

Partial Retreats and full retreats - yes has to retreat as a group (or not at all). A single ship Carrier temporarily loses that ability if escorted.

A FCR can't change which group it is part of (but can be added to a group, if it hasn't already done so).

There are defined time periods when Carrier groups can be formed and dissolved.

515.15 confirms this, but there are two exceptions :-

1) An FCR can be added during a battle to a Carrier Group - but once added, it can't be removed until the dissolving phase - which in effect is the retro phase (but the introduction of advanced Raids meant carriers would retain their escorts all the time)..

2) Carrier Groups may need to be re-organised to meet pursuit requirements - which invariably means combing part crippled groups into fully crippled groups.

(example 2 groups and you already have your 3 uncrippled ships and there is a stack of other crippled ships - CV+mec+eff and cv+MEC+EFF might become cv+mec+eff due to force restrictions)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Paul, in all other types of movements, carrier groups are not required to move as one unit.

I know of no rule that says they must in the case of a partial retreat. Full retreat gives no help in this as all units in a hex retreat together, group status being irrelevant.

A somewhat similar point has come up before in which a carrier group that has its carriers but no escorts destroyed (this could happen voluntarily or if escorts are frozen) is still considered a group, so quite possibly the escorts of a carrier that partially retreated without them would still be considered under the limitations of a carrier group and not be able to operate as a non group ship. Perhaps.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 01:02 pm: Edit

I think this might help:

---

Quote:

(515.14) FORMATION: Players may form carrier groups at the start of the Combat Step for a Battle Hex. Those groups then remain intact until the Pursuit Step, when they might drop crippled ships.

---

---

Quote:

A carrier that retreats into another Battle Hex during the same Combat Phase cannot get new escorts under the "once per Battle Hex" provision.

---

---

Quote:

Escorts can be transferred between, into, or out of carriergroups at the start and end of the Combat Phase. If individual carrier and escort counters are on the map in the Battle Hex, they must be formed into groups (or specified as not being in groups) at the start of the Combat Step (3C) (whether or not they are in the first Battle Force deployed) and this cannot be changed during the Combat Step (other than destroyed ships being removed). Groups cannot be reorganized, merged, or divided during the Combat Step (i.e., between rounds); exception: Pursuit. Escorts specified as "not in groups"cannot be added to groups during the Combat Step.

---

By Andy Johnson (Sabre21) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 09:04 pm: Edit

Any idea where I can find the fleet chart for the 4 Hydran fleet markers that came in one of the later expansions, I think it was combined ops? The 4 extra fleet charts provided has all but the newer Hydran fleets shown, at least in the copy I have had for ages now.

I couldn't say if later reprints added it in or not or if it might be found in a captain's log.

I appreciate any help

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 09:35 pm: Edit

To the best of my knowledge, crippled ships can't withdraw to avoid pursuit (they still must be in the pursuit battle). Thus, if the defender does end up retreating from the capital hex after the bases, crippled ships that have partially retreated are also still eligible for pursuit. If so, then the group hasn't left the hex until after combat is resolved, and so isn't split up.

On the other hand, if the partial retreat ships do a fighting retreat (or otherwise retreat into combat) they can't reorganize, which implies that they should have retreated together...