Archive through December 04, 2019
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS: F&E Q&A: Archive through December 04, 2019
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - 01:56 pm: Edit

Q509.32. Can a tug changed to mission -M (unassigned) during the economic phase of turn X be assigned another, non-economic phase mission later during turn X?

Example: A tug begins a phasing turn X as mission W (rescue tug). The player changes the tug mission to M (unassigned). May the player later during turn X assign the tug mission C (carry mobile base)?

Rule 509.32 states:

Quote:

(509.32) DESIGNATION: All tugs and LTTs:l: may (but do
not have to be) assigned missions during the Assign Missions
Phase of Economics (1 G) or Production (2B7). Certain
specilic missions can also be assigned at other points
in the Sequence of Playas noted below. Many of these
missions are in expansions, and are marked with the
double-dagger :I: which marks expansion rules.

Once a mission is selected it cannot be changed until
the owner's next turn. At the start of the turn, all tug
assignements continue unless the player gives a tug or
LTT a new assignment. "Unassigned" (509.1-M) is a valid
assignment and is the only one that can be changed during
the turn.



Note that the last sentence of paragraph 2 of this rule does not necessarily create an exception to the first sentence of paragraph 2 of this rule.

Reading 1: Once a mission is selected it cannot be changed until the owner's next turn. Thus, changing from mission W to mission M on turn X is a change, and you cannot then later change to mission C on turn X. While mission M is the only one that can be changed during the turn, presumably because of the operation of the first sentence of this paragraph, the player must then wait until turn X+1 until the tug *started* the turn with mission M that it got the flexibility of the last sentence of paragraph 2.

Reading 2: The last sentence overrides the first sentence. In this case, one can change a tug mission from -W to -M on turn X, and then turn it back to -C on turn X.

The real question is, does the last sentence overrule the first in that paragraph?

Of course, one could argue that the "specific overrides the general" with respect to the last sentence. However, note that the last sentence does not actually create an exception to the first. Thus, it is possible that once you change to -M you cannot then change again to another mission on the same turn. Either reading is potentially valid.

Thus, the rule is vague enough that a ruling is respectfully requested.

Note that this question does not apply to any tug mission that must be assigned during the economic phase.

Please note: Reading 2, in my opinion, is bad for the game. Rationale: Reading 2 encourages pointless counter shuffling every eco phase to avoid being stopped from changing tug missions by your opponent on a technicality. In the alternative, it forces you to check all your tug missions at the beginning of the turn, anyway, which almost defeats one of the main benefits of the "flexible tug" rule - which is to speed up play by allowing players to switch tug missions "on the fly" until a mission is assigned.

Personally, I find the prospect of switching out my "TG-W" and "TG-C" counters (and all other missions I used last phasing turn) to "TG-M" counters every eco phase to prevent my opponent from stopping me from changing missions later to be a distasteful waste of time. On the other hand, if you have to lose a turn of tug action in order to switch it to a flexible role, then at least you're making an active decision during eco as opposed to just doing busy work every phasing turn.

Actually, reading 1 has the same effect. You *have* to check every tug mission of every tug during eco (except those you build) to decide if you want to "waste" a turn setting a tug to mission M.

So, that's a wash. Either reading, the "flexible" tug rule just isn't that flexible. You are either doing pointless counter shuffling every turn (reading 2) or wasting a turn to get flexibility on a future turn (reading 1) - but either way you're checking every tug counter every eco phase.

But that is just my opinion. The rule is the rule.

Ruling respectfully requested. Thank you.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - 03:27 pm: Edit

The text seems clear enough...but to clarify it...

A tug beginning a given turn as "unassigned" can later declare a specific mission, if permitted by rule, after the the beginning of the owner's turn. Once a specific mission is ASSIGNED to the tug by the owner it cannot be changed until the player's next turn.

Note that a crippled tug is AUTOMATICALLY designated with Mission-I Tug Under Repair (509.1-I) if crippled.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - 04:06 pm: Edit

Chuck, I respectfully submit that reply does not answer the question.

The question covers the following situation:

1) On Phasing Turn X a Klingon player designates a TGB with mission W (rescue).

2) On Non-Phasing Turn X, the same TGB must continue with mission W, because it cannot change roles until phasing turn X+1 per 509.32.

3) During the economic phase of phasing turn X+1 the Klingon player changes the TGB mission from "W" (rescue) to "M" (unassigned).

So, the question is this: On phasing turn X+1, does the "change" from "W" to "M" mean that the TGB cannot AGAIN change from mission "M" to some other mission during a later part of phasing turn X+1?

Per the first sentence of the second paragraph of 509.32, once you "change" roles the tug cannot change again. The change from "W" to "M" during the economic phase is a "change" and thus it appears the tug must stay with mission "M" for the whole of turn X+1.

However, and this is not clear, does the last sentence of the second paragraph of 509.32 constitute an exception to this rule? If so, then on turn X+1, this TGB could be changed from mission W to mission M during the economic phase, and then later in the turn X+1 (say, during strategic movement) the TGB could switch roles from "M" to "C" (carry MB). At that point, the tug would of course have to stay with mission C until the next turn: X+2.

However, under this reading, it is possible for a tug to change roles *twice* during a turn, so long as the first change in role is to mission "M" during the economic phase of the phasing player's turn.

Note this issue doesn't apply to any tug mission that must be designated during the economic phase (like mission D, for example).

Question more clear?


Note: What had me vexed is the idea that, if I want to take advantage of flexible tugs, I have to do counter sifting every single turn so that all tugs I wanted to be flexible had to be switched to mission M during the eco phase (again, not counting roles that must be assigned during the eco phase). Seems like busy work, but that appears to be the way the rule works under reading 2 (i.e., two role changes per turn, so long as the first one is to mission M during the eco phase).

-T

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - 04:34 pm: Edit

From the SoP (105.0):

Quote:

1D3: Declare missions for existing tugs and other transports
(509.32). Note that some tugs and transports may have their
missions assigned or changed later (509.1).



Essentially all tug missions are reset to Mission-M at the beginning of the phasing player's turn. Many players continue existing tug missions by leaving the pod assigned from the previous turn.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - 04:36 pm: Edit

Chuck, that answers the question, thank you.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 05:13 am: Edit

Questions regarding infiltration, rebellion, gunline groups, and disrupting battleship construction have been adjudicated above.

FEDS SENDS

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 10:13 am: Edit

Chuck, thank you for those rulings.

Just as a friendly reminder (to make it easier to find) here is my pending question on retreats.

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.


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

Unless overruled by ADB, multiple or chain retreats involve any battle hexes that are either created or blend into existing battle hexes by any retreating forces; the term does not distinguish between fighting or non-fighting retreats. If a retreating force creates or flows into an existing but yet unresolved battle hex, then that hex is now considered a multiple or chain retreat hex even if existing forces in the hex have yet to battle during the current combat phase; it also matters not what order the phasing player chooses to resolve the remaining battle hex(es). Players should simple note that the hex is now considered a retreat battle hex for the retreating player(s) and any supply points that were disqualified under SPECIAL-PRIORITY-3E under rule (302.733).

FEDS SENDS

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Ted: see ruling above.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, October 31, 2019 - 10:51 am: Edit

Chuck, thank you for that ruling.

I have a follow up question just to make sure I understand the ruling about priority 3E. In the example I gave in my question, priority 3E would indeed exclude starbase 902 as a supply point, and the Zin player *must* retreat back towards the offmap as being the closest valid supply point?

Clarification and confirmation respectfully requested.

FEDS: In your example the SB at 0902 is now excluded as a retreat location under retreat priority 3E if the player wishes to retreat from hex 1001. As to where retreat is viable from 1001, then one must follow the retreat priorities again knowing the SB at 0902 is no eligible under 3E. I would note that the off-map and hex 1202 are both equally distant from 1001.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 10, 2019 - 09:21 am: Edit

(537.3) Does the Tholian Capital hex have an Early Warning Network similiar to that of the LDR (714.4) and (759.0) and Vudar (717.4) and (759.0)?

Reasoning: The LDR and Vudar were added to the game system after EWNs were introduced to the game. All three are single system capitals.

I would advocate for such for the Tholians if using the EWR rules (537.3). Obviously, this would have to be approved by ADB as my opinion on this issues does not have the force of a ruling.

FEDS SENDS

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, November 20, 2019 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Ted Fay asked about SWARM production:

Quote:

1) The rules say to deduct 1 year of FFFs. OK, but it's currently a fall turn and I already spent my FFFs for the year. Does this mean I have to wait another turn (because I don't HAVE to take the swarm when I get the dice total to 100) - or does it mean that on the next turn (Spring Y177) that I have to use up the 12 FFFs for the swarm, but I still get the SWARM now (Fall Y176)?


=======================
Quote:

(514.1) CREATION
At the end of each Production Phase after all production is completed, the Klingon player rolls one die (two if at war with the Federation, such as Turn #7). When the running total of these die rolls reaches or exceeds 100, the Klingon can (but does not have to) take a Swarm. When a Swarm is taken, deduct 100 from the running total and the Klingons lose one year of free fighters (training cadres used in the Swarm)...



FEDS RULING

If using annualized fighter production from AO, then the following ruling applies:

Unless overruled by ADB, when Swarm production (514.1) is permitted from FO and annualized fighter production from AO is being used, the Klingon player must surrender whatever free fighter production (up to 12 free factors) that the player currently has available, then, when new free factors become available on a later turn, the Klingon player must surrender whatever balance is due before any new free factors are used for other production.

FEDS SENDS

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, November 20, 2019 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Chuck, thank you for recognizing a ruling was needed and providing said ruling quickly.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, November 22, 2019 - 04:19 pm: Edit

(524.0) Casual PF Flotillas

Does a Casual PF Flotilla count as a ship for purposes of assembling a Reserve Fleet (507.0)?

Under (524.42), a Casual PF Flotilla counts as a ship for command limit purposes when building a battle line. It is unclear if a Casual PF Flotilla counts as a ship for the purposes of creating a legal Reserve Fleet or not (i.e. assuming a Command Rating 10 Flagship in a given Reserve Fleet, if it wants to include a Casual PF Flotilla, is it limited to 9 other ships plus the Casual PF Flotilla and then a scout, or can it have CR10 Flagship, 10 ships, a Scout, and then a Casual PF Flotilla in addition?)

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, November 24, 2019 - 10:17 am: Edit

I"m just asking for a clarification about FSDs.

In "(445.31) BASIC: Each depot costs six EPs. Each empire can buy one such depot per turn, but cannot buy fighter storage depots prior to Y172 and cannot exceed the limits in (445.11)." are the six EPs the cost of the fighter factors with no other costs added for the depots? I first read this rule as six EPs for the depot and then the cost of fighters for which I cannot find the cost.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 24, 2019 - 12:46 pm: Edit

The FSD is 6 EPs total. No other associated costs. See the updated SIT for the Empire in question on the cost of a FSD.

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Sunday, November 24, 2019 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Concur with Turtle.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, November 24, 2019 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Thank you both.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 02:12 am: Edit

Is the On Line SIT wrong and Question on Battle Pods (and indirectly Battle Pallets).

The On Line SITs show the cost of the Klingon BP to be 4 Ep's and the Lyran BP is only 2 Ep's.

As the BP and KBP are identical - should the costs be the same?

The Lyrans also have the Battle Pallet which add +2 CR and +4 Compot but there is no Klingon equivalent.

(Federation, Hydran and Kzinti cost different amounts as they provide different increases (Federation Tug only costs 6 Ep's for example) and Kzinti BP includes a Drone Function - but the Lyran and Klingon ones are identical +2 Command Rating and +2 Compot.)

(Note - the printed 2010 rule book doesn't seem to have Pod costs in it)

Thank you

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 09:16 am: Edit

If there is some issue with the SITs, then please post a line item in that topic as tey cannot be addressed here and may be lost.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, November 25, 2019 - 09:30 am: Edit

Chuck - done. Thanks

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Are there rules in F&E on changing out modules on the Romulan Hawk modular ships?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Yes.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 09:27 pm: Edit

Quote:

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Tuesday, December 03, 2019 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Are there rules in F&E on changing out modules on the Romulan Hawk modular ships?



See (433.43) for the modules on Sparrow Hawk cruisers and Sky Hawk destroyers. See (525.6) for the various Romulan dreadnoughts that can use sparrow hawk and sky hawk modules.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Wednesday, December 04, 2019 - 05:37 am: Edit

I do not have the new book. Was just wondering about it was all. Is it worth doing i am wondering :)

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, December 04, 2019 - 06:40 am: Edit

Gregory (433.43) is in older versions of the F&E Basic Rule book as well as F&E 2010. (525.6) is in Advanced Operations.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation