Please cite the specific source rule.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 04, 2019 - 08:19 pm: Edit

From the D6M Notes on the current (2017) Klingon SIT:

---

Quote:

Mauler; Shock Variant (Roll: 5-6 on D6; non-shock attack factor = 0).

---

---

Quote:

In my current game with Bill, I'm fairly certain Bill has chosen a BIR of 3 every time he's had a mauler on the line in a given combat round. He hasn't always used the mauler to kill something. VBIR and damage rolls, usually have something to say about that.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, August 04, 2019 - 09:42 pm: Edit

FEDS believes those lines in the SIT note sections of maulers that reads "non-shock attack factor = 0" is a cloning issue and should be removed. Maulers simply used to add their compot value to a battle force and NOT USED in a directed damage attack under (308.41) do not roll for shock.

---

Quote:

(308.42) SHOCK: Maulers are vulnerable to “excessive shock”, i.e., the ship’s own powerful weapons shaking it apart. To reflect this, after every Combat Round in which a mauler is used for Directed Damage (308.41), roll one die. If the result is 5-6, the mauler is crippled. Maulers crippled voluntarily or by Directed Damage do not roll.

---

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, August 05, 2019 - 01:03 pm: Edit

Peter's query - replied in Q&A Discussion as it doesn't seem to be rules question.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, August 05, 2019 - 03:02 pm: Edit

As a reminder -- Issues related to SITS need to be reported as line items in the empire specific SITs folder.

Thank you.
FEDS

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, August 07, 2019 - 11:12 pm: Edit

Q:Is it possible to use the full compot of a D6M or other mauler by rolling for shock when not mauling a target?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 10:25 am: Edit

Q308.47. In what is news to me personally, most maulers mauler must roll for shock if it uses it's full compot, even if it does not use 308.42 for directed damage. In view of this understanding, does a mauler have to roll for shock if it uses the 308.47 capture bonus in a pursuit battle?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 10:31 am: Edit

Q308.44. In what is news to me personally, most maulers mauler must roll for shock if it uses it's full compot, even if it does not use 308.42 for directed damage. In view of this understanding, what is the effect of the recited procedure *after* the first sentence of the rule? If a mauler that does not use it's compot (so as not to roll for shock), then would not it be obvious which mauler is performing the directed damage, and the enemy player can select which mauler to direct upon? If both maulers must roll for shock because both maulers used their compot, then what is the point of the procedure - because both maulers are rolling for shock regardless of which used directed damage, and since killing a mauler does not change the ability of the mauler owner to use it to perform directed damage, why would it matter which mauler was killed? Why not simply say no more than one mauler can be used for directed damage in a battle force, and then leave it at that? Any mauler that contributes compot (at it's shock rating) must roll for shock, and any mauler that does not contribute its compot rating is known to the enemey when the battle force is revealed, giving the enemy the ability to chose which mauler to direct upon.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 10:37 am: Edit

It was NOT a cloning error and I am a bit insulted at the implications thereof. I know what those look like and they

It is not impossible that when I did it I or someone else misremembered a rule. That happened years ago and the details are unknown.

I will look at it later, but no comment by me or any staffer can change a published rule.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Do not panic! Look around for a towel!

Even I don't know why the SIT says that (and has for years), 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 "SIT 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 SIT 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. You might have to check to see if it went to another rule number so search for mauler.

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 Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 07:16 am: Edit

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?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 06:55 pm: Edit

Sam, rule of thumb, once a group is formed it can't be broken until after the Combat Phase (minor exception is the group dropping crippled escorts for pursuit)…

[The FCR is an(other) exception in that it can join a group mid-combat but is then stuck until after the Combat Phase...]

So yes, no (it's a group), no (group), no (group)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 07:48 pm: Edit

I would prefer an official answer in the Q&A forum and non official answers in the Q&A discussion forum to avoid confusion.

YMMV.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 11, 2019 - 10:41 pm: Edit

Q675.E1 The Federation is listed as having a -CL under the AO line in (675.E1). Should the -CL actually be CLV? (525.314) states that 2 of these ships become available to the Federation once they enter the General War.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, August 12, 2019 - 12:58 pm: Edit

Q302.723:

A battle over a Capital Hex has been raging for several combat rounds. The Defender has Partially Retreated several crippled ships over that time period. The last round of combat the Defender decided to fight, they take damage on fighters and the SB only, destroying the SB. There are no other defending bases or base like units left.

The Defender then announces Retreat. Can the ships that were Partially Retreated during Previous Combat Rounds now be pursued?

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 06:29 pm: Edit

508.122 states that An "Attacker can use Directed Damage on up to four battalions on a given planet in a single Combat Round;this counts as his only Directed Damage attack. If destroyed by Directed Damage, the Attacker must expend five points per battalion(will require ten points unless a mauler is used);"
I read to say that if you had a Mauler in your fleet, and you are attacking planetary defenses, that it would require you to expend 5 points per battalion, up to four battalions, 10 points per battalion if you didn't have a mauler in your attacking fleet. By fleet I'm talking about your attacking force that you have setup for that combat round. Now I'm being told that what it really means is that if there is a Mauler in the force that you do directed damage on a PDU the same way that you would in a fleet engagement. in other words I have an attacking force with 100 compot. I get a Battle Intensity of 30%, which gives me 30 damage points. included in this force is a 10 point Mauler, I'm attacking a major planet with a BDE defending. what I have been doing would be to subtract 20 points from the 30 damage points and use the remaining 10 points to deal with the 24 fighters, there would be 14 points left over to be used as plus/minus points for the next round unless there was a needy carrier or two needing fighters. What I'm being told is that what I should instead do is to, using the above example, subtract 10 points from the 30 damage points. This 10 points represents the mauler in my force, this 10 points would kill off 2 PDU's that leaves me with 20 points to be used on the remaining 2 PDU battalions. Leaving me with 24 homeless fighters to deal with as minus points on the next round.
If this is the case then I have been playing this game wrong for over thirty years. If I have been doing it wrong then why doesn't section 508.122 simply state that it cost 10 damage point per PDU to Direct damage planetary defenses, and then state that it is possible to direct damage a PDU with a mauler at the normal 1-1 rate as is done throughout the game unless specifically noted.
It seems to me that the way that It is being explained to me would be very difficult to work out. I'm being told that it takes 10 points to direct kill a PDU unless you are using a mauler, then it takes 5 points to kill a PDU, and you can kill up to 4 PDUs. OK, so what do you do when you have a 7 point mauler, or a 12 point mauler? You are hitting a regiment with a force that includes a 7 point mauler. plus you have a total of 20 damage points to use the way that I understand section 508.122 would be that you subtract 10 points from your 20 damage points to kill the regiment, leaving 10 points to deal with the fighters. What I'm being told now is that I subtract the 7 mauler points from my 20 leaving 13 Damage points. This 7 mauler points that I have subtracted will kill 1 Pdu, but that leaves 2 maulers points. How does this remaining two mauler points get used? Do I subtract these 2 points from 5 points on the remaining PDU, Thus leaving an additional 6 points to be subtracted from the remaining 13 damage point? Doesn't that seem a little complicated, not to mention the fact that this was not mentioned in the rules dealing with planetary defense. Whereas the way that I have been reading section 508.122 is a lot less complicated with no unnecessary math. If you have a mauler in your attacking force
then killing a PDU cost 5 damage points per PDU, up to 4 PDUs. Period. After which you get to deal with his homeless fighters.

Add a Message

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 12:34 pm: Edit

When retreating, I attempted to use 6IFF in the pursued force. It didn't cause any issues, but Richard noted that it may not be legal to do so, as the hex I was retreating into was not the one from which the fighters came.

Can I use an IFF squadron in a pursuit battle where the retreat is not into the hex those fighters came from?


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

---

Quote:

(307.31) CREATION: The retreating player must form his Battle Force as follows: First include all crippled ships, then add up to three uncrippled ships. From this force, designate a flagship. If the Battle Force exceeds the Command Rating, the force is used as is although excess ships (selected by the owner) do not count in the combat potential but can be damaged. If the Battle Force does not exceed the Command Rating of the flagship, additional uncrippled ships may be added up to the maximum rating.

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Q302.76: In the case of a battle hex where no battle round was fought and no flagship ever selected, in this case 7 Klingon E4s and 1 Lyran FF, how is the flagship for purposes of determining which empire is qualified to use its retreat priorities to determine the retreat hex?

I did search the Q&A forum but did not find an answer.

Rule in question:
(302.76) ALLIED FORCES: In the case of a retreating force con-
sisting of units from two or more allies, they must all remain to-
gether and use the retreat priorities of the empire which provided
the flagship of the last Battle Force (or the force that produced
the first retreating units, or the first Battle Force if using a retreat
before combat). An ally cannot, in this case, refuse (207.21) en-
try to an off-map area. Units might be forced to retreat out of
supply by this rule.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 02:17 pm: Edit

How did the retreat happen if their was no battle? Retreat is part of the battle phase.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 02:30 pm: Edit

BH1401:

Kzintis offer an approach battle (declined).

R1:
Kzintis attack Kzintai. Defemders decline the battle (they are not required to defend). All planets being devastated with no Coalition bases or whatnot, the Coalition must retreat.

***

This can also happen after a rejected approach battle where the attacker then immediately retreats as the battle force is not formed until after the opponent accepts.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, August 31, 2019 - 05:51 pm: Edit

As this has become relevant, and I never noticed it before:

(603.3) Victory Conditions:

"...newly built bases do not count unless they replace lost bases (and must be within 3 hexes of the specific base they replaced) or unless they were built in captured enemy territory (not neutral territory). In either case, newly built bases in the same hex as another friendly base do not count at all."

Does this mean:

A) You can only count one base per hex for VP calculations.

or

B) If there are two friendly bases built in a given hex, *neither* of them count for VP calculations.

For example, if the Klingons build a lone SB in the Hydran Capital, it is clearly worth 20VP (as it is a new SB in captured enemy territory). If the Lyrans then *also* build a SB in the Hydran Capital, do the Coalition get:

-20VP (for one of the two bases built in captured enemy territory)?

-0VP (as both bases are in the same hex as a friendly base)?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, September 01, 2019 - 04:16 am: Edit

FEDS RESPONSE:

Unless overruled by ADB, a player can only count one base per hex for VP calculations.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, September 01, 2019 - 10:25 am: Edit

Confirmed

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, September 01, 2019 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Q6ES.513 Does the Klingon IWR begin the normal release schedule of 1 squadron per turn starting on Turn #2 under or are all 3 squadrons released on Turn #2?

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Sunday, September 01, 2019 - 06:46 pm: Edit

Followup to Peter's questions.

A lost BATS has to be replaced by a BATS. SB by an SB?

So a new SB near where a BATS was lost doesnt count?

A new BATS near where an SB was lost doesnt count ?