| By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, February 12, 2020 - 06:38 pm: Edit |
Chuck, Ted asked this question back in December and you said that you were looking at it. Any update? We have a game going and this answer is about to become relevant. I copied the previous text so you do not need to go searching:
Quote:By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, December 30, 2019 - 12:08 pm: Edit
Imported from Q&A:
Quote:
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.
That is certainly a good argument based on a strict reading. However, the original Tholian rule was written long before F&E2010 update which allowed the increase in BIR. This may be a case where there was a missed rules interaction, and the rules should be updated to indicate that the attackers *may* increase BIR while stuck in a web, but have to be at at least BIR 4.
This certainly makes sense. The attackers certainly can do their best to press deeper into the Web. On the other hand, they are "stuck" so maybe they have to stay at "4".
Anyway, seems like an official ruling is warranted given the rule history.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, February 12, 2020 - 07:34 pm: Edit |
References: (304.5) INCREASING INTENSITY
Quote:
The Attacker can voluntarily increase the battle intensity by one point (to a maximum of ten) after every fourth Combat Round involving non-ship units (756.0) in a given Battle Hex. Note that an approach battle cannot involve non-ship units and cannot count for this purpose. This applies regardless of the ratio between ship and non-ship units. If the Attacker wishes, he can drop the increased intensity at any point in which case the count of battle rounds would start over and he could raise the intensity after the count is satisfied again. The decision to increase the battle intensity is made after both Battle Forces are selected and announced and after the die roll (if any) is made for variable battle intensity.
(512.2) BATTLE FORCE
The Tholians are not required to include the base or planet in their Battle Force and are not required to include more than three ships in the Battle Force. This is an exception to (302.36). If fewer than three ships (not equivalents) are available, the base/planet must be in the Battle Force. The three ships could be allied ships, but allied ships are not required to be used as long as three ships are used.
(512.5) COMBAT EFFECTS
The web has no effect on formation bonus. Battle intensity for ships in the web is four (plus what the Tholian picks). If the base is destroyed, the web disappears.
There is a partial exception in the case of armed web tenders‡ (539.4).
Questions:
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?
3) 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?
FEDS REPLIES:
1) The count is cumulative "after every fourth Combat Round involving non-ship units; as it may be possible for the Tholian to have ships in one round then non-ships in another. There is also no requirement known to FEDS that requires the attacker to select a specified BIR each round under (304.5).
2) Yes; as long as all other rules are followed.
3) Yes, the attacker may use (304.5) to increase intensity so long as other requirements are met. Note that the increasing intensity number is a separate variable from the attacker selected BIR.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, February 13, 2020 - 05:00 pm: Edit |
Another Question on 512.5: In the case that the ONLY Tholian unit in the combat hex is the base under attack, does rule 512.5 serve as a specific rule that trumps rule 304.41 (which specifies that the other player may select both BIRs)?
In other words, the Coalition player attacks a Tholian BATS with 6 ships. There are no other Tholian units in the combat hex.
Rule 512.5 says the BIR is "4 plus whatever the Tholian player picks". However, rule 304.41 allows the Coalition player to pick both BIRs.
Initially, rule 512.5 seems to be the "specific" overriding the "general" rule of 304.41. However, it was not clear to me if this possibility was contemplated when 512.5 was drafted.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, February 13, 2020 - 05:03 pm: Edit |
If possible, please rule on the above question as soon as reasonably possible, as the answer affects combat in progress.
Thank you.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, February 13, 2020 - 05:07 pm: Edit |
Ted:
Rule (512.5) is the specific rule and (304.41) is the general rule. The web effects trap and nullify the advantage of the attacking ships over non-ship Tholian who can fire their phasers through the web.
| By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, February 14, 2020 - 01:58 pm: Edit |
Q539.134:
How do APTs/PTRs/FXPs actually supply other ships? Does there need to be something done beforehand to accomplish this, like pay for the supply? What if there were several APTs stacked on a friendly base with a friendly fleet and that base was destroyed, rendering the friendly fleet Out of Supply? Can the APTs co-located with that friendly fleet supply ships in that fleet after the destruction of the base?
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, February 14, 2020 - 04:48 pm: Edit |
Chuck, thank you.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 15, 2020 - 11:19 pm: Edit |
Rob:
This is a very good question and needs to be defined. I'll look to what has already been defined elsewhere within the rules.
Quote:(413.4) PARTIAL SUPPLY GRIDS...
(413.41) ABILITY: Each Economic Point produced in a Partial Supply Grid can be used to supply up to five units, including up to twelve replacement fighters. (This is the only case in which supply costs Economic Points. It is not required; the player may leave ships unsupplied to save the money for something else.) See (413.42).
(413.411) The Partial Supply Grid pays the cost of supplying ships in the Economic Phase, which is the only time it can do so.
(413.412) Unneeded replacement fighters cannot be stockpiled for later use. Special Federation fighters cannot be provided by a partial grid, so the carriers listed in (302.352) would have their “nominal” fighter strengths.
Quote:(539.134) An APT could carry 4 factors of drone bombardment points (537.6). An APT could carry enough supplies to supply two ships (no replacement fighters) that are otherwise out of supply for one turn. This ship could transport four spare fighter factors but these could only be transferred in the Fighter Replacement Step at the end of the Combat Phase, not between combat rounds. (FEDS: the same verbiage is used for PTRs and FXPs.)
Quote:{(509.1-U) Drone Supply Tug‡: Each tug can carry 24 points of drone bombardment ammunition (LTTs can carry twelve points, while theater transports can carry six points). This allows drone bombardment ships to conduct a bombardment mission without a supply path.The tug can be assigned this mission (537.6) during the Phasing Player Turn at the moment it begins Operational Movement or Strategic Movement, or is placed in a Reserve Fleet, or as part of the Final Activity Phase (10C).
| By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, February 16, 2020 - 06:26 am: Edit |
"Federation special fighters can only be punched within the Federation main supply grid."
Punched should probably be purchased.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 10:46 am: Edit |
URGENT QUESTION: the game between Rob and I is held up until we can get this one answered, because the answer makes a BIG difference. My apologies for the length, but I wanted to be thorough for both sides.
I have a question about how Tholian pinwheels should be treated when located at a Tholian base. In particular, the question is how do you treat the interaction between rule 322.31 (a pinwheel is a "base") with rule 302.2121 and rule 302.2122 (action with multiple bases). The key interaction here is this: Do pinwheels at the same "location" as a base have to follow the "action with multiple bases rule."
Here are the two possible answers as I understand them to be:
1) Pinwheels at a Tholian base do not use the "multiple base" rules under 302.2122. The Tholians effectively get a large defpot bonus while fighting alongside the PDUs/SB.
2) Pinwheels at a Tholian base *do* use the "multiple base" rules under 302.2122. The Tholians *can* form pinwheels, but if the Tholian does so, then the Coalition can make the pinwheel the "focus of the attack", and thereby blunt the compot of the PDUs/SB.
...............................................
Ok, the rest of this is supporting text and argument. I wanted to keep the question as brief as possible so it's understandable - but I also wanted to post the arguments either way for the judge's consideration.
Briefly, it's been ruled (in Captain's Log #44 in 2011) that Tholian Pinwheels can voluntarily take damage at the 50% bonus (322.33) if all the ships in the pinwheel takes the damage at once. This was an outright rule change to the second sentence of 322.32 (which said if "one *or more* of the ships in the pinwheel take damage voluntarily it's without the 50% bonus).
The Tholians have *a lot* of DDs and PCs. So much so, that the above ruling effectively gives the Tholians roughly 108 extra damage absorption capacity over the their original OOB when fighting over Tholia. That's a lot. Was that intended?
Anyway, the point is the Tholians got a huge damage absorption bonus, but it was never defined how "action with multiple bases" (rule 302) interacted with pinwheels. If a pinwheel is treated as another "co-located base", then the Coalition gets something of a break. Here's why.
So, under (322.31) a pinwheel is treated as a base. Therefore, in my opinion, the (relatively new) F&E2010 rule 302.212 (action with multiple bases) gets triggered *if* you form a pinwheel. The SB has to be the base "adjacent" to the planet and PDUs under 302.2121A.
That being said, rule 322.13 states that pinwheels can be formed in the same "location" as a Tholian base. Rule 302.2121 states that the definition of "location" provides that all of the fixed defenses are part of the battle [but] "possibly under the special rules below." Rule 302.2121A states, "All of these bases are in the same "location" although the rules below will limit all but one base to half of their combat strength, and only if the base "adjacent to" the planet is the primary focus of the battle can the PDUs be damaged (by voluntary or Directed Damage).
So, all that being said, I do not think that just because 322.13 states that the pinwheel can be formed at the same location as the Tholian base does not mean that rule 302.2121 et. seq. does not kick in, because the definition of "location" explicitly contemplates the subsequent rules about having a base being excluded, the attacker determining the focus of attack, etc. under 302.2122 et. seq. In other words, 322.13 does not mean you can form the pinwheels right on top of the base; instead, you 302.2122 still kicks in.
You can probably see where I'm going with this. If you form a pinwheel, then you can either exclude the pinwheel as base under 302.2122A (but that is pointless) or include it as a base. However, if you include it, then what I will do is attack the pinwheel, not the SB, which will effectively negate the PDUs attack factors (their fighters are still present), and also halve the SB's compot and EW.
In short, you will absorb a lot more damage if you form pinwheels, but you will not dish out nearly as much as you would if you did NOT form pinwheels.
Not that SFB matters that much to F&E, but it kind of makes sense. A Pinwheel cannot *move*, meaning it can't move in and out of the wedding cake, and it is "stuck" near the front where it can get hit and fire back. But if you do that, then I stay further away from the base/planet and blunt the amount of damage that the inner defenses can dish out.
Worthy opponent argues back as follows:
Quote:...[A]t the end of the day Pinwheels are not bases and should not be subject to the multiple bases rule. You'd also not get to choose which base to fight, as the Web rules seem to limit your options there as well.
I'm pretty sure that Pinwheels are treated like a base but are not actually a base. Just like a Convoy, FRD or other mobility limited unit. So I would get to do things like accept or decline an approach battle and the like, but since a real base is present there is no need. I think technically a pinwheel can block pursuit, but not because it's a base, but because they are not allowed to retreat, so in essence they become a rear guard. Kinda like a base, but with the loss of ships.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 12:03 pm: Edit |
Ted,
I apologize if this seems "nit-picky" but when you say
you're not quite correct. A pinwheel's warp engines still generate power that can be used for weapons, shields, EW, etc., but not movement. But a pinwheel can move under impulse power. Moreover, since a pinwheel doesn't have positional stabilizers, a ship can tractor it and pull it at warp speed, taking into account the increased movement cost.
Quote:Not that SFB matters that much to F&E, but it kind of makes sense. A Pinwheel cannot *move*, meaning it can't move in and out of the wedding cake, and it is "stuck" near the front where it can get hit and fire back. But if you do that, then I stay further away from the base/planet and blunt the amount of damage that the inner defenses can dish out.
| By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 12:54 pm: Edit |
Should prolly move discussion to Q&A discussion.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 12:55 pm: Edit |
Ted, I cannot locate my most recent copy of the SFB rules, but I believe that the reason for "other" bases being "“located near” the planet (130 thousand kilometers or more away from it)" is due to unacceptable interactions between their positional stabilizers. Pinwheels do not have positional stabilizers and could be “adjacent to” any planet or any base by my understanding of the SFU.
EDIT: I found the reference in (302.2123B2) Other bases (which are 130 thousand kilometers away due to positional stabilizer interactions) contribute half of their combat power. The owner selects the EW and Attack ratings and reduces them by 50 percent. After all are totalled, any last halffactor is ignored.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 03:08 pm: Edit |
FEDS RULING: Command: Each ship in a Pinwheel counts against the flagship command limits. There is no "discount". (756.3) Base-Like Units: Treated as bases for purposes of (302.2) Combat with bases: Planets (with or without PDUs), FRDs, PRDs‡, tugs (supply points), tugs (deploying MBs), convoys, military convoys‡, Tholian pinwheels‡, LTFs‡, MBs, operational bases‡, attacked SAFs‡, engineer regiments‡, colonies‡, colony bases‡.
Unless overruled by ADB, pinwheels are "base-like" units but are not bases. Pinwheels at a Tholian base do not use the "multiple base" rules under 302.2122. Also bases don't count toward command limits, where pinwheel ships do per (322.52):
Quote:
Quote:
This ruling is also supported by Pinwheel SoP and the Multi-base Special Sequence :
Quote:
(322.1) FORMING PINWHEELS
(322.11) Formation: Pinwheels (PWs) cause a more complicated version of the Sequence of Playas follows.
Both sides select their battle forces.
Before revealing them, the Tholians have the option to declare if they are forming one or more pinwheels and must state the number being formed.
The enemy then decides whether to offer an approach battle, or, press on to fight at the pinwheels.
If an approach battle is offered, the Tholians can accept it or not. If they accept it, they cannot use the ships locked into pinwheels. If they do not, the Combat Phase moves to the next round (which gives both players the option to retreat or form new battle forces).
Battle forces are revealed only when the approach battle is accepted or the enemy moves to fight at the pinwheels.
This can happen on the Tholian player's turn or the enemy player's turn. The Tholians often pushed a fleet forward, then had its PCs lock into a pinwheel to force the enemy to attack.
(322.12) Prohibited: Pinwheels cannot be formed if the enemy has a base or a unit being treated as a base in their battle force.
(322.13) Co-location: Pinwheels can be formed in the same location as a Tholian base and would be inside the web of that base, if there is one.
========================
(302.2123D):
1. Defender designates the excluded (302.2123A) base (not changeable, but droppable on any round) and the location of “sheltered (302.2122) units” (changeable every round).
2. Attacker selects one defending base as the “focus of his attack” (302.2123B). This selection can be changed reach round.
3. Both select Battle Forces, and combat is conducted normally. “Other bases” are treated under the restrictions above.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 03:45 pm: Edit |
Chuck, thank you for the fast ruling on pinwheels.
I have another, unrelated, Tholian question.
Q322.22. This rule says that "Ships which are counted as consorts cannot be in a pinwheel unless the ship they are consorting is also in the same pinwheel." Does this rule also apply to *escorts*?
Follow up question, what is the effect of forming a pinwheel on a carrier group.
For example, the Tholian player announces with round 1 of combat that a BW (black widow) carrier is escorted by 2*PCE. All are PC class hulls, and thus are eligible to form a pinwheel.
May the {BW,2*PCE} group form a pinwheel?
If it forms a pinwheel, is the carrier group temporarily suspended or permanently lost?
May the BW form a pinwheel with *other ships*, thereby breaking the pinwheel? For example, the player decides to form a pinwheel with the BW and 2*PC, for example, leaving the PCEs out of the pinwheel.
If the above BW, 2*PC pinwheel is broken, do the PCEs continue to escort the BW originally assigned to it?
*MUST* the BW form a pinwheel using its escorted ships?
Ruling respectfully requested, thank you.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 04:53 pm: Edit |
FEDS - NO RULING REQUIRED
Rules on the matter are clear.
Quote:(322.43) Groups: Carrier groups can enter pinwheels only as individual ships (breaking up the group), losing all group benefits. The Tholians can break up carrier groups between combat rounds if they want to use the ships in Pinwheels.
| By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 06:15 pm: Edit |
So just to be clear on the Pinwheel question and carrier groups, carrier escorts that form part of a Pinwheel would be under the -1 attack penalty since they are no longer part of a group correct? Even if the Pinwheel contains a carrier along with the escorts, correct? But those carriers in the Pinwheel do not have the phantom missing escort slots, since forming the Pinwheel prohibits them from being escorted.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 09:39 pm: Edit |
Quote:(322.43) Groups: Carrier groups can enter pinwheels only as individual ships (breaking up the group), losing all group benefits. The Tholians can break up carrier groups BETWEEN combat rounds if they want to use the ships in Pinwheels.
| By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, February 18, 2020 - 08:38 am: Edit |
Wait, so the carriers still count as 2 units, even though it is impossible to assign them an escort, if they are part of a Pinwheel? Would that still be the case if there was an escort as part of the same Pinwheel as the carrier?
For example, a Pinwheel of 3xBW would take up 6 command slots. If a Pinwheel contained a BW, PCE and a PC, would it count as 3 or 4 command slots? Sounds like it would count as 4. And the PCE would have the -1 attack penalty. Is that correct?
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, February 18, 2020 - 09:44 am: Edit |
Rob:
As the rule states, Tholian carrier groups can be broken up BETWEEN combat rounds because the only way they can enter a PW is as INDIVIDUAL ships. Once broken up, carriers and escorts cannot support each other because the rules state that they lose ALL [carrier] group benefits. It matters not that these now INDIVIDUAL ships (a carrier and its former escort) are part of the same pinwheel.
The consequences for carriers (like the BW) being in a PW is that they still must account for missing escorts slots. The consequences for escorts (like the PCE) being in a PW is that they still must lose one attack factor.
Would a Pinwheel of 3xBW would take up 6 command slots?
FEDS: YES
Would a Pinwheel that contained a BW, PCE and a PC count as 4 ships?
FEDS: YES
Would a Pinwheel that contained PCE have the -1 attack penalty for the PCE?
FEDS: YES
====================
If anyone can cite where my understanding of this rule is wrong, then I welcome the input.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, February 18, 2020 - 10:19 am: Edit |
Q309.32: When, exactly, in the sequence of play do I pay for drone bombardment? The sequence of play does not say, even though the SoP *does* say when to pay for drone special raids (step 3A3D).
.......
Why this matters: I'm playing Coalition attacking the Tholians. I'm using drone bombardment to bring up the compot of my battle line. I currently have 6 EPs in the bank, but I expect to spending 1.2 EPs per combat round for at least 10 combat rounds (at least 12 EPs).
That means I have to go into a deficit of 6 EPs (minimum). Because I've already started using ADS, the opponent says I will have to increase my national debt by 6-12= -6 EPs. I will then have to pay interest on said increased national debt.
*Normally* I can use salvage from the battle to pay for this additional drone bombardment without having to increase national debt, because normally salvage is collected "immediately." However, when you fight Tholians protected by web, due to the operation of the web, salvage is NOT collected immediately. In fact, I will collect salvage ONLY if I ultimately win the hex (rule 439.15).
Because rule 309.32 says to pay drone bombardment *during combat* the opponent says that I have to pay for the DB without the salvage, which will increase my national debt and increase the interest I pay. I'll collect the salvage at the end of the battle, of course, but I'll still be paying more (effectively) than the 0.1 per DB point used due to interest.
I say that's not making sense. There's plenty of instances (medical billing, restaurants, etc.) where you receive service NOW and pay LATER.
Technically the rule says to pay "during combat." However, if DB is paid as the very last step in the combat phase, then I have paid for drone bombardment "during combat" *after* having collected salvage when the webs are down and I won the hex.
Because the sequence of play does not define WHEN I pay for drone bombardment during the combat phase, a ruling is needed to resolve this issue.
Ruling respectfully requested.
| By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, February 18, 2020 - 10:46 am: Edit |
Actually I think it gets a bit more complex than that.
According to 439.11 it actually says that Salvage is collected at the end of each Combat Phase, but gives the option of receive it at the end of each Combat Round instead. Basically the players can choose if they want a bit more bookkeeping per round or not.
309.32 is very clear that the Drone Bombardment cost is paid in full per Combat Round. This allows it to dovetail up nicely with 439.11, if the players are collecting Salvage per Combat Round.
447.0 is also clear that once a race starts using ADS, they cannot revert to 430.6. 430.6 basically allows the Empire to rack up some debt and not have to pay it back until the beginning of the Econ Phase of the next turn. That Empire cannot rack up nearly as much debt as with ADS, but it has the advantage of being deferred until the next run (where it MUST be settled up) and does not cost any interest.
Also, buying extra troops (521.81) is paid when a battle force is formed. This is also not reflected in the SoP.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, February 18, 2020 - 11:12 am: Edit |
It is NOT correct to say that 309.32 is "very clear" that the DB is paid in full per combat round. This is what the rule says:
Quote:(309.32) COST: The owner must expend (during combat)
0.10 Economic Points per drone factor per Combat Round
in which it is used in this role. A drone ship could use only
some of its factors to reduce the cost.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, February 18, 2020 - 11:18 am: Edit |
As an additional argument, in a game where we are constantly trying to simplify we should not be checking economics for increased ADS *EVERY COMBAT ROUND* when DB gets spent. That's just my personal opinion, though.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, February 18, 2020 - 11:51 am: Edit |
Okay, stupid question from an SFB player who reads the F&E topics but doesn't play F&E...
How do you use drone bombardment against a Tholian base or planet, which is presumably surrounded by web?
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |