Archive through October 28, 2019
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through October 28, 2019
Sort of not really?
(431.74) indicates that when you lose your capital, you lose your free fighter production.
(442.62) indicates that if you have any saved free fighters from your annualized free fighter allotment, and your capital is captured, those stockpiled free fighters evacuate the capital with your treasury, so you don't lose them.
Both of these continue to be true when use annualized free fighters. If you lose your capital, you lose the ability to produce new free fighter factors, but you will not lose any of the ones you have saved, assuming you have some saved. Annualized fighters does not mean that you continue to produce free fighter factors when you lose your capital. The only difference is that if you happen to have some free fighters saved up when you lose your capital, you get to save those and use them later.
For example, in SPy171, the Kzinti get 12 free fighter factors. If using annualized fighters, if the Kzinti use 6 of them to make a CV, and then save 6 of them for later, and then in FAy171, the Coalition capture their capital, the Kzinti can take their 6 save FFF with them off map, and use them to convert a BC>CV off map on their FAy171 turn if they'd like. But after they use up those saved FFF, they don't get any new ones till their new shipyard is finished.
I think the rules are clear and are as Peter Bakija has explained.
I suggest that if you really feel we are wrong and that it needs correction that you ask it formally in the Q&A forum.
The AO rule (442.6) is quite clear and Mr Bakija's assessment is correct.
Ref:
Quote:(442.61) The free fighter factors given to each race on a turn-by-turn basis in F&E-2K and expansions are combined, in Advanced Operations, into an annual allowance available on the Spring turn of each year. The order of battle documents have been edited to reflect this.
(442.62) Unused free fighter factors may be carried over to the next year but if not used in that year will be lost forever with no salvage or other compensation. (In simpler terms, you can never carry over more than one full year of free factors.) Half-factors can be carried over just as full factors, within the rules and limits. The stockpile of unused free fighters is evacuated with the treasury in the event that the capital falls (511.35).
Is there something I am missing here?
Chuck, I don't think so. The way I've followed the discussion of a lost capital and free fighter factors (FFF) is that if you lose the capital you lose the free fighter production until you have paid for a new capital shipyard. If you had any free fighter factors leftover at the fall of the capital, then (442.62) applied, but only as stated to the current leftover balance of said FFFs. Note that (511.352) would apply to the FFFs, e.g. you must have a valid supply route to the new capital.
In any event you would not get any more FFFs until you either completed a new capital shipyard under (511.32) or a Medium Shipyard under (450.21).
I think everything is clear. My message was a response to Stefano writing:
"431.74 is meant only for games without annualized fighters and their rules in AO, where the FFF production that must be used in each turn is lost (like everything else) with the shipyard.
Annualized fighter supersedes it with 442.62."
Which seemed to indicate (possibly?) that he thought that if you are using AO Annualized Fighter Production, you continued to produce free fighter factors when you lose your capital, which is not the case.
There are clearly two correct, yet mutually exclusive rules in effect here:
A) If you lose your capital, you cease producing free fighter factors, until you replace your shipyard.
and
B) If you are using annualized free fighter factors (442.6), and save some free fighter factors, when you lose your capital, you get to evacuate those saved free fighters and still get to use them until they are used up.
Both of these are true, and neither supersedes the other (as suggested by Stefano), regardless of which rules set you are using.
I think people may have confused themselves.
It is perhaps easiest to just note things are either produced or 'used'.
You produce Free Fighters at a Capital Ship yard - you do not have to use them though.
If the Capital Ship yard is captured - things not used can be transferred (supply permitting) to the new Capital - so things which have a nominal location *(Ep's and unused Fighter Factors) can be moved, as both have already been produced.
Things transferred can be used at a later date, as they are not being produced at that point.
*(Command Points for example do not have a nominal location and so are not lost.)
The one thing not mentioned, at least in an easy to see manner is provided in the example below.
The Kzintis on their turn of production use 4.5 of 6 Free Fighter Factors. (Doesn't matter if using annualized or not in this case.) Leaving 1.5 Free Fighter Factors for the next production phase. Due to bad luck on the Kzinti side, they lose their capital. Now (442.62) easily applies if playing with AO. However, when playing without AO, then the evacuation of the remaining 1.5 Free Fighter Factors does become the question under (511.352) as nothing is mentioned about Free Fighter Factors specifically.
Quote:(511.35) DESTROYING THE SHIPYARD: The only way to destroy the shipyard is to capture the entire hex which contains it. Simply devastating the capital planet or all of the planets in its system will not capture the hex.
(511.351) As combat cannot end with opposing units in the same hex, you must fight on until all enemy units in the capital hex are destroyed or have retreated. This includes the PDUs on all planets in the hex. Exception: See (508.235), which would prevent the destruction of the shipyard.
(511.352) If the capital has a supply path to another base or planet at the instant before it falls, the Treasury (430.1) can be evacuated to that base or planet; treat this as a transfer to a partial grid (435.24). If not, some of it can be evacuated by Orion smuggling (410.34) and the rest is lost; it cannot be captured. Any deficit (430.63) is evacuated automatically.
It may be implied that Free Fighter Factors are transferred because of having a "positive" balance of them available at the time the capital is lost.
>>It may be implied that Free Fighter Factors are transferred because of having a "positive" balance of them available at the time the capital is lost.>>
In the basic F+E2K10 rules, there is no provision at all for saving free fighter factors on a given turn (431.742). Either you use them all on a particular production phase, or they vanish. You can't save them till next production phase. So what happens to them when the Capital is lost is irrelevant, as you lost them at the end of your production phase when you didn't use them.
That being said, the 2K10 rulebook includes a loose version of the annualized free fighter factor rule as an option (431.744), where you could save them from turn to turn, but there is no rule in the book that addresses what happens in this case if the shipyard is lost (*that* rule is in AO).
Also posted in Q&A for a formal answer - but me or William might have missed something.
Question on Homeless Ships (401.5)
Can an Empire voluntarily change which ships are supplied by the Host Nation?
410.52 confirms that if the supported ship is destroyed, supplied by another empire or home supplied, you can transfer the support line to another ship of that empire.
410.562 confirms when that involuntary change occurs (start of that host player turn).
410.563 Confirms that voluntarily you can cancel a support line for one Empire, if your replacing it by a support line for anther empire.
Therefore, it does not seem possible to voluntarily change Ship A being supported to Ship B (unless 410.52 occurs).
If the intention is that supported ships can be voluntarily changed though, what would the cost be?
i.e. can the existing (and still required but not no longer wanted) supporting line be moved to a different ship and if the new ship is a carrier, the 1 Ep surcharge is applied, or would the supporting line have to be cancelled to voluntary replace ship A with Ship B and a new 0.5 (or 1.5 Ep's for a Carrier) cost be paid?
The related question is can you voluntary stop the supply to Carrier A and supply Carrier B and would a new 1 Ep cost arise?
(Perhaps if this was allowed, I can see it being abused by changing the supported carrier each turn and in effect over several turns refilling several carriers from a single support line).
So the questions are
1) If 410.52 or 410.563 does not apply, can you change th)e supported ships?
2) If 410.52 or 410.56 doesn't apply and it is ruled you can change the supported ship, what is the cost (Ship>CV, Ship>Ship or CV>CV (or technically CV>Ship))?
Thank you
TL/DR version of the above: the Feds have a support lines for 12 Kzinti ships. They want a support line for a Kzinti carrier. Can they upgrade an existing line by paying 1EP? Or do they need to cancel an existing line and pay 1.5EP for a carrier line?
Quote:(410.56) LIMIT ON HOMELESS SHIPS: A given empire cannot support more than twelve homeless ships from any given ally and cannot support more than 24 homeless ships from all of its allies at any given time.
(410.561) Support lines are specified as for a given ally when bought and cannot be changed to a different empire.
(410.562) The specific ships being supported are designated at the start of the host’s Player Turn and cannot be changed until the start of the host’s next Player Turn.
(410.563) An adopting player could cancel an adopted ship production line, perhaps due to a shifting alliance or perhaps in order to make room for a line supporting another empire. The new support line must be paid for and there is no credit for the canceled line.
My thoughts on the rules from Paul Howard's question.
The support line for a non-carrier homeless ship would remain available for another non-carrier homeless ship of the same empire.
The support line for any homeless carrier would remain available for another homeless carrier of the same empire.
To change from either a homeless ship to a homeless carrier or vice versa the line must be dropped then the full homeless ship charge for the new ship in question must be paid in full under (410.51) as stated in (410.563).
Thomas,
Why? Surely a supply line that can supply a carrier and it's fighters would be more than capable of supplying a ship that is not a carrier also. What it amounts to is that player basically having "overpaid" for a supply line by using a carrier slot for a non-carrier. It's not exactly an advantage, so why would it need to be repaid? I can't say I agree with that logic.
Rob - I believe that covers when the Supply line is set up.
i.e. - there are 8 ships out of supply.
I can afford to set up a supply line for 4 of them this turn - and as I need Scout support over combat ships, I declare the 4 Scouts as being supported.
The following turn, I can afford to set up a further 2 supply lines - so 2 War Cruisers get supplied.
So that covers off which ships get supplied and when.
410.52 - Perhaps there isn't anther way of changing the ships supplied through the Homeless ship rule - as otherwise, surely it would be just easier to say - At the start of each of your turns, you can freely change which ships are supplied and if ships do not require supply (and you give the examples - dead/home/other empire supporting them), the supply line remain and can be used at a later date - or cancelled and another Empires ships supported.
And the more I read that section - I think that it perhaps what we have missed - you can't freely change supported ships - hence why it specifies when you can change it.
All confusing stuff 
(Copied from Across the Pond game topic).
The supply needs of a carrier are different than those of a standard warship. Yes both use a lot of the same consumables, but carriers use both more in quantity and in needs. Just look at an aircraft carrier vs a cruiser or destroyer.
Thomas, that's my point. Both are ships, and as such are covered by the 0.5 EP charge. The extra 1 EPs is to setup a supply line of fighters. If those fighters don't go anywhere, so what? You already still paid the cost to buy the beer and chips for the ship itself, you just keep the fighters and never ship them out as they were not needed.
The plain language of the rule seems straight forward:
The 0.5 EP homeless charge is for ANY type of eligible ship to cover the cost of a ship; the extra 1.0 EP covers the cost for the FIGHTERS on a carrier.
So if one purchases 3 lines and also pays the cost of 3 EP to cover any carriers, then a player could use those 3 lines to cover any type of eligible ship even if it is NOT a carrier.
Do you still need a formal ruling?
Chuck, Yes I think a formal ruling is needed on changing a standard ship to a carrier for homeless ship support lines.
Chuck
Yes please - and if you add confirmation that you can voluntarily change the supplied ship (as the rule highlights death, own supply or other empire supply as being the only way to support a different ship*), I think that would help too.
* - It would be better to say (IMHO), you can select a different hull on your player turn and only if it goes from a normal hull to a CV hull, or a different empire is the CV surcharge or new supply line set up payment required.
Thank you.
From Q&A -
"Although it is not relevant to my game with William, I feel one aspect of the Homeless Supply ruling should be appealed :-
"2. Any production line set up for a homeless ship (0.5 EP) can be used to support any eligible homeless carrier of the same empire with the following restrictions: the carrier (as a ship) would itself (as a ship) be in supply for movement and combat; the carrier’s fighters would be considered out-of-supply (410.3) for the balance of the turn even if they are transfer to or adopted by a carrier that is in supply; a homeless carrier being supported as a non-carrier ship cannot receive any replacement fighters at the end of a player turn per (410.33); any fighters transferred to or adopted by the carrier are immediately treated as being unsupplied under (410.3)."
I feel an appeal is appropriate for two reasons :-
The supply rules have not changed since the original rules were introduced but 'counters' have.
In the original rules, although there was nothing to stop a player suppling the Carrier and not supplying the 1-3 escorts, there was a significant penalty in that the Carrier Group 'Counter' was then restricted to Out of Supply movement and Escorts would suffer the Out of Supply penalty - therefore there was a good reason why a player would supply the counter with supply - to keep it fully operational.
With Flexible Carrier Groups- the ability to supply just the Carrier and not it's escorts supplied means the penalty for being out of supply with Carriers is massively reduced - allowing in effect the player to marry up escorts either which although still out of supply, may be closer to the required combat hexes or may be in supply through other means.
In addition, the ability to transfer fighters to out of supply carriers, which lack fighters and then claim Homeless supply fighter replacements, allows one homeless supply line to in effect provide fighter replacement for two carriers.
In other words, the penalty for having several carriers out of supply is significantly reduced under 2010 rules - and a one off cost of 1.5 Eps to permanently replacement in effect up to 24 fighters per turn* (a CVA with 12 standard fighters) seems particularly low in cost in comparison to replacing fighters which are not supplied through a main grid (i.e. 413.41, 1 Ep for up to 5 units and 12 replacement fighters).
* - Ignoring the Hydran IC or other future ships which have more than 2 standard squadrons).
Due to change in counter rules, the simple solution would be to not permit homeless fighters to be transferred to other carriers and have a limit on the number of supply production lines in force for carriers.
Thank you"
In other words, it seems to me the Homeless supply rules for Out of Supply Carriers is busted - the penalty is pretty minor.
Is this an issue for the game?
Paul wrote:
Quote:means the penalty for being out of supply with Carriers is massively reduced
How is it massively reduced? FEDS stated:
Quote:the carrier’s fighters would be considered out-of-supply (410.3) for the balance of the turn even if they are transfer to or adopted by a carrier that is in supply; a homeless carrier being supported as a non-carrier ship cannot receive any replacement fighters at the end of a player turn per (410.33); any fighters transferred to or adopted by the carrier are immediately treated as being unsupplied under (410.3).
Any fighters transferred to the carrier are halved if transferred during the turn. No replacement fighters are received during appropriate point in the sequence of play during the current turn after combat, and it is possible that replacement fighters might not be received during the appropriate point in the sequence of play during the next player turn depending on the supply situation.
Escorts have been and always were ships. I do not see this rule as strengthening carrier groups in any way. Regardless of the group counter, you had to pay 1.5 for the carrier plus .5 per escort assigned to the group if you wanted the full combat value of the group in question. With Flexible Carrier groups, and they have been around long before 2010, there was no issue with supplying them or not supplying them as they still counted as individual ships.
The only issue I see with Chuck's ruling as stated, is what do you pay to change a support line for a standard ship to a support line for a carrier to allow the carrier to have replacement fighters.
Thomas
A fighter is 0.5 OC, 1.0 DC when out of supply - so can be used for full value when taking damage.
So 1 Carrier Supply line can get 2 Carriers worth of damage capacity,
I accept - if the homeless carrier ended out of supply from either home or Homeless supply, it will not regain the fighters transferred..... but that is no different to a carrier in a normal situation.
And to be out of supply would require either a very high level of aggression or a large amount of bad luck (or poor planning). But the vast majority of the time, you would be able to ensure the homeless suppled carrier remains within the supporting Empires supply network.
The issue of Carrier Group counter supply was that if part of the counter was out of supply - the entire counter for movement would be restricted. so turning a 3CVS counter into a CVS counter, CLE counter and a EFF counter means that penalty no longer applied.
There may be times when the supplied carrier can't get to a hex with other supplied ships (or other out of supply ships), but you can at least factor that into the players plans.
So an awful lot of penalty rules get removed for a very modest cost.
Paul, show me a rule number and text for a CV group counter being out of supply.
Thomas
There isn't (but might be wrong - 2000 and earlier rules are in storage) - but prior to flexible carrier groups, non-single ship carriers had 2 or 4 (can't think of a 5) ships on the counter - which moved and operated as a group.
(IIRC, you could break off ships to be repaired, using the 'Ship Number' counters - but outside that, they operated as a counter with 2 or more ships on).
Therefore, if one of the ships didn't have homeless or adopted (or Partial supply grid) supply paid for, for movement, the Counter would be re-stricted to Out of Supply movement - although in combat, the Supplied Ships would operate as normal.
For Retrograde movement, again the counter would be unable to retrograde (unless supply had been restored) - and therefore a player would be likely to pay for all or none of the ships to be in supply, as the penalty for not paying for some ships within that counter, was significant.
In other words - there may not have been a rule which said "you pay for all or nothing" on a counter with multiple 'linked' (i.e. Carrier Plus Escort) ships, but if you didn't pay for all of the ships to be in supply, you only got half the benefits foe the ships you did pay for supple, but would be penalised by the ships you didn't pay for - because the Counter had to move as a group (within the very limited exceptions).
OK?
No, because I don't see anything in the (410.5) Rule from the Y2K rules that say anything about group counters.
Now (410.32) from the Y2K rules says counter.
Quote:(410.32) The attack factor of unsupplied units is reduced to 50% of the value shown on the counter (round fractions of 0.50 and up to the next larger number, those of 0.49 down to the next lower number). This reduction affects Phasing and Non-Phasing units. The defense factor of unsupplied units is not reduced. Fighter and PF factors also lose half of their attack (not defense) strength. Maulers (308.4) can use their special ability, but at the reduced effectiveness of an out-of supply ship. Scouts retain their capabilities but ships out of supply cannot conduct two-hex reaction movement.
The 2KX rule says counter as well:
Quote:(410.32) ATTACK: The attack factor of unsupplied units is reduced to 50 percent of the value shown on the counter (round fractions of 0.50 and up to the next larger number, those of 0.49 down to the next lower number). This reduction affects Phasing and Non-Phasing units. The defense factor of unsupplied units is not reduced. Fighter and PF factors also lose half of their attack (not defense) strength. Maulers (308.4) can use their special
ability, but at the reduced effectiveness of an out-of-supply ship. Scouts retain their capabilities but ships out of supply cannot
conduct two-hex Reaction Movement.
In either case you I think your point isn't valid because the flexible carrier group rules have been around since 1993, and all Q&A rulings, to the best of my knowledge, have been based on all of the current rulesets in use and available at the time of the question are answered with the caveat that you are playing with all the expansions. Which the majority of people here do so. I know I haven't played a base game since I got Special Operations (became Combined Operations), and Carrier War (became Fighter Operations) and that was back in 93 and 94 when those add ons became available.
Quote:In other words, the penalty for having several carriers out of supply is significantly reduced under 2010 rules - and a one off cost of 1.5 Eps to permanently replacement in effect up to 24 fighters per turn* (a CVA with 12 standard fighters) seems particularly low in cost in comparison to replacing fighters which are not supplied through a main grid (i.e. 413.41, 1 Ep for up to 5 units and 12 replacement fighters).
Is it though? If you supply a whole bunch of carriers without their escorts, you cannot really operate those fighters, as the carriers would be far to vulnerable, even if sending those fighters forward. So sure maybe your opponent can get a bunch of extra fighters to absorb damage, but the escorts you could have supplied can absorb that same damage (sometimes a bit more) AND let you actually operate the carrier!
What I did not see in Chuck ruling was anything about the fighters themselves that are supplied when a carrier is Homeless. I always thought in that case the carrier was being outfitted with fighters from the Host empire, meaning those fighters could NOT be transferred back to carriers of the Homeless carrier's owners empire, but could be transferred to carriers/bases of the Host empire.
That would be the only compelling reason to want to supply a whole bunch of carriers and not their escorts, because you plan to just use them as glorified FCRs.