Greg: Generally, no.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, December 04, 2019 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Richard, I agree. My biggest problem with it is the stockpile of A-modules which cannot be used for new construction. It's inefficient. Even (433.433) has the note "If a ship is converted or substituted during construction, A-modules are built and stored." which adds to the inefficiency. Assuming the rules are followed for PWC and the OOB fleets, there are already 6 SP-A modules and 15 SK-A modules stored (unless I miscounted). Perhaps a rule could be added which allows stored modules to be used for a cost savings like Seltorian stored booms.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Thursday, December 05, 2019 - 03:08 pm: Edit

You could create an interesting variant with the modules where you get one or two free modules for each ship type every year or something and there are no free automatic A modules. It would require bookkeeping and you probably wouldn't give free carrier modules (or you would and you just have to pay for fighters or use your free ones). With a small amount of free modules the rule would see more use. The problem currently is the cost for conversion is too high to make it practical to be used outside of rare edge cases as you have to pay for the module and the conversion cost and it is almost always easier to just build what you need with new construction. Even switching two sparrowhawks on separate fronts to use each others modules costs almost as much as a frigate.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Thursday, December 05, 2019 - 03:15 pm: Edit

John:

Pretty sure the A-module thing is just a shorthand so you can always convert to an A-module and probably should not be envisioned as stacks of the things piling up everywhere.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, December 06, 2019 - 01:03 am: Edit

Jon, moved to discussions.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 10:31 pm: Edit

I found an inconsistency between the ME rules and the Seltorian SIT.

From ME "(546.369) Repairs at STSs: ...while smaller STSs (NS/AW) have a rating of seven."

From the Seltorian SIT "Base Hull (NS); ... ; 6 repair points ...".

Do NS/AW's have ratings of 6 or 7 repair points?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, December 15, 2019 - 09:06 am: Edit

Q603.3 When totaling up the number of ships for victory conditions under (603.3) do ships in the Depot (424.0) and those ships on survey duty (542.0) count in the total?

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Tuesday, December 17, 2019 - 05:20 am: Edit

Q534.0: The E&S mission to damage a carrier/PFT (534.224) indicates that it is the only PT attack allowed against a carrier or PFT [hereafter I refer this this as the “(534.224) restriction”]. A ruling in Captain’s Log #53 (page 112) now allows the E&S mission to cripple a ship (534.223) to target an unescorted carrier or PFT. That made me wonder if any other missions should be made an exception to the (534.224) restriction.

I think the following three missions are the only other missions that might be effected by the (534.224) restriction:
(534.214) Disrupt Reaction Movement
(534.244) Rescue a captured ship
(534.245) Hijack an enemy ship

Clearly (534.214) can effect at least some carriers and PFTs since the rule indicates that fighters and PFs on the targeted warships are included in the attack factor limit of this mission but I do not know what limits (if any) there are to this.

I would think that (534.244) and (534.245) would allow unescorted carrier or PFT to be targeted but not an escorted carrier or PFT.

Can carriers and PFTs be affected by missions (534.214), (534.244), and (534.245), and if so what restrictions are there?

Are any other E&S missions effected by the (534.224) restriction?

Thanks.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Friday, December 20, 2019 - 09:04 am: Edit

Two questions about fighters.

1) An FV is repaired while in a partial supply grid. We have (501.542), which says that it receives fighters as part of the repair step. We also have (501.55) which says replacement fighters are free unless drawn from a partial supply grid and refers to (413.41). Does that mean that it would have to pay to receive replacement fighters?

2) Transfers -- can carriers in the same hex transfer fighters before movement? In particular, the SB that is repairing the FV has some fighters. In SFB terms it seems like this would be possible, but the rules only talk about transfers between rounds.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, December 23, 2019 - 10:59 am: Edit

Q512.5. This rule states that the BIR of the ships in the web "is" 4, plus what the Tholian picks; however, may the attacking player use 304.5 (increasing intensity) to *increase* the BIR of the attacking force?

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, December 25, 2019 - 08:03 pm: Edit

Ted Fay, my reading of the rules leads me to believe the answer is "no".

304.5 does not require the attacker be at a BIR of 4 at any time, nor does it specify that the four rounds are consecutive as opposed to cumulative. I assume consecutive and will ask the question formally.

512.2 does not prohibit the Tholians from alternating between including and excluding the base/planet provided the ship count is satisfied which would affect the consecutive count but not the cumulative count. I will ask if they can alternate the base/planet inclusion.

512.5 is specific leading me to my opined answer.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, December 25, 2019 - 08:10 pm: Edit

Two formal questions as promised:

1)In 304.5 is the count of the four rounds consecutive or cumulative?

2)In 512.2 may the Tholians alternate between including and excluding their base/planet from their Battle Force provided their ship count for exclusion is satisfied?

Thanks in advance, John

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, January 05, 2020 - 10:46 am: Edit

Sorry - pretty urgent question.

How do Captured Ships (305.0), Form (308.74), Groups (307.32) and Persuit (307.0) interact?

Probably best to give the current situation.

A Kzinti CVS+CLE group fought in combat and was killed - with the CVS being captured.

Coalition then attempt to retreat (and are caught).

We are fairly certain that 308.74 (assuming the captured and not-converted CVS remains as a 'Carrier' Group until a new Carrier Formation step occurs) that 308.74 applies, so it can't go in form, but we might be wrong?

Does the crippled CVS count as 1, 2 or 3 ships for command purposes in the persued force and so does the empty slots count as 1 or 2 of the permitted uncrippled ships, or 1 or 2 of any additional permitted ships or 1 or 2 of the permitted force compot total?

Example 2 of 308.122 confirms uncrippled ships can be removed, but which 'slot' the empty escort slots take up is relevant.

The persued force would like to be (lower case are crippled) : -

Lyran bc(F), Kzinti captured cvs, FV+e4a+E4, D6D, 3 x cw.

There are 3 other crippled ships in the perused force, which can be directed on, but do not contribute compot.

So, persued force has
All crippled Ships
3 Uncrippled Ships
3 rather than 5 crippled cw ships included for compot purposes.

As I am asking several questions, three other questions might has well be asked for clarity

Does a captured (but not yet repaired) Carrier retain the ship designation of 'being a carrier'?

Does a captured Carrier retain the status of how many escorts it had prior to being captured?*

* - With an additional question, what happens if a permitted Single Ship Carrier (which may or may not have been escorted) is captured - does the immediate situation (prior to forming new carrier groups) continue - i.e. If a Romulan SUP or Federation CVL is escorted in battle and dies and is captured - how does the capturing player treat it in any pursued force?

Can a captured Carrier be included in a new carrier group in a different battle, prior to it being repaired and converted (so for example, if the Lyrans capture a Kzinti CVS, prior to it being repaired and converted, could Lyran escorts be used to help protect it in future battles)?

We are not playing with FCR's - but a relevant question would also be - if Carrier was captured, could a FCR be used to escort it in the current battle (normal battle or persued battle)?

Sorry for so many related questions.

Thank you

By Mitchell Land (Toadkillerdog) on Tuesday, January 07, 2020 - 09:47 am: Edit

We're getting ready to set up and play the Second Fed-Kzinti War from CL #13. In that scenario, it says the Feds have 3 BPs. However, the MSITs don't show any stats for a BP for Y136. Anyone know what those should be?

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, January 08, 2020 - 04:00 pm: Edit

The SITS were probably adjusted after CL#13 was published changing the in service date.

No easy answer here. Other than just go with what was designed and the counters available and see how it works.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, January 08, 2020 - 07:36 pm: Edit

Why not go with the factors on the BP+?

By Mitchell Land (Toadkillerdog) on Thursday, January 09, 2020 - 08:40 am: Edit

"Why not go with the factors on the BP+?"

Per the MSIT, they were not yet in service.

I got an answer on Facebook:

"Ryan Opel - The FED BP entry is in error, they hove no BP available until Y145. F&E Staff memeber."

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, January 09, 2020 - 02:47 pm: Edit

The scenario in CL13 was published in 1993 and is outdated. Back then, much of the early data prior to the GW was still in development by ADB. When the F&E Staff updates this scenario, we will correct errors and modify the scenario to reflect current data.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, January 16, 2020 - 02:55 am: Edit

Not an F&E guy.

BUT, I have a question about the enclave going neutral during the GW.

Does the enclave going neutral have any effect on the ability of the Feds to produce ships (other than the loss of EPs)?

Basically, is there a ship yard there able to build CL and larger military grade hulls?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, January 16, 2020 - 06:02 am: Edit

No, the Orion enclave going neutral has no effect on the Federation's ability to produce ships, other than the loss of the 10 EPs per turn. That loss may or may not be enough to force the Federation to down sub some ships or forego a couple of NCLs at the most.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Thursday, January 16, 2020 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Could there be a optional rule? For a Minor are medium ship yard at Orion?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, January 16, 2020 - 09:13 pm: Edit

GSF:

ADB would have to approve such an optional rule and under which conditions that an Orion ENCLAVE player could have a minor shipyard within the enclave.

...but for grins, here is AN EXTRACT of the MINOR SHIPYARD RULES for the Orion Pirates Player...

(450.19) ANNEX: Available ships:

Orion LR, DW, CR or BR

See (450.0) rule for further details.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, February 11, 2020 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Not relevant to my game - but it has happened in another game.

It would appear, there is no 'rule' which stops the Lyrans retreating from Kzinti space into the NZ hexes from 1005 to 1806 on turn 1.

As Lyran forces are not permitted to enter Klingon space - they are not interned, as per the normal entering a NZ hex penalty, but are legally permitted to enter NZ hexes adjacent to Klingon space (other than 805 and 906).

The relevant rules are 302.731, 503.611 and 601.161.

In other words, it appears legal for a Lyran force to retreat from say 1205 to 1306 - as there does not appear to be a rule which precludes them from doing that (other than they can't retreat into hexes 805 and 905) - as they can enter NZ hexes next to the Klingons on turn 1 (except the two stated hexes) and Priority 1 for retreats can be to a NZ hex (so they can retreat away from supply etc).

Due to it being a NZ hex next to a future belligerent, the Kzinti may NOT attack the Lyrans there - if they enter the hex they are interned in Klingon space.

Therefore the Lyrans can get Red Claw Fleet (with a Tug) into a position to attack 1401 on turn 2, and the Kzinti are unable to do anything about it - which seems incorrect.

I am therefore guessing 503.611 should state "the Lyrans may NOT enter Neutral hexes 805 to 1806 on turn 1, since that would provide overt proof that an Alliance exists".

(There is a limit to how far the Lyrans can reach, but up to 1806 cover the entire Kzinti/Klingon NZ front).

Can a formal ruling please be made, as I think allowing additional Lyran forces to get to 1401 on turn 2*, without an ability to stop them, is bad for the game.

* - There are other ways to get Lyrans within range, but the Kzinti do have means to stop it.

By Fabio Poli (Fabio) on Wednesday, February 12, 2020 - 04:41 pm: Edit

kzinti have means to stop it

By Fabio Poli (Fabio) on Wednesday, February 12, 2020 - 05:04 pm: Edit

@Raven
Deploy Count's fleet in 0902. add a police.
Deploy Duke with reserve on 1304 and the rest on planet 1105 (deploy a monitor here).
Dont react to Lyran Home fleet from SB 0608.
Dont react to the 6 ships of Home fleet from 0707.
When red claw move to 0803 react all but reserve on 0903 et voila' it's decision time for Lyran: if he goes to 0804 pin it. The rest will be pinned on 1105. Cheers!