---

Quote:

Note that the current phase's salvage is not applied to a given empire's calculation of allowed deficit spending under (430.6) or (447.0).

Thus if the empire in question is already at the maximum deficit spending allowed they cannot use drone bombardment (309.0) unless the drone bombardment factors are provided by (509.1-U).

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, February 20, 2020 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Because it isn't available until it is in your treasury.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 20, 2020 - 03:47 pm: Edit

I think the rules say you can add it to your treasury immediately upon your ship being destroyed? Someone should check this.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, February 20, 2020 - 03:53 pm: Edit

The rules do say that:

---

Quote:

(439.11) At the end of each Combat Phase (or Combat Round if the players find that more convenient), each player totals the salvage (from the SIT) of all of his (or her) lost ships, and adds the result (known as "salvage proceeds") to his treasury (in the Capital Shipyard).

---

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, February 20, 2020 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Note that it does NOT say when, like 20th century banking (checks deposited were not available to be used until the check was vetted, so that a second check made on the deposited one could bounce during the vetting process) …

Now Commercial convoys, WYN ships sales, and WYNCOVIA accounts are available if done during the operational movement phase and can be used for combat. (Blockade running is OpMove!)

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 20, 2020 - 06:49 pm: Edit

It does say when, the end of each combat phase, or the end of each combat round as the player prefers.

'End' means 'end'. :p

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, February 20, 2020 - 07:26 pm: Edit

Not quite. WYN Trade EPs arrive at step 10B of the Sequence of Play, which is the end of the turn.

Commercial Convoys and WYN Ship sales happen immediately though.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 20, 2020 - 07:40 pm: Edit

I'm not talking about that, just talking about salvage (in general).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, February 20, 2020 - 09:32 pm: Edit

Salvage can be received at the end of each combat round.

Per 105.0 (SoP):

---

Quote:

5-6X8: Determine if any eligible ship casualties can enter DLR system (424.33); otherwise determine and record salvage for destroyed units (439.1) if eligible.

---

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, February 23, 2020 - 01:48 pm: Edit

And what does the Peanut gallery think? (From Q&A) : -

And a more urgent question.

Retreat, 302.76, 410.5 and 411.7

Basically, what rules apply when retreating with a force which has

Allied Force A
Allied Force B
Allied Force B which is Homeless or Expedition Suppled by Force A.

Can the Homeless/Expedition Supplied ships dictate where either Force B (and Force A if they retreat jointly) forces retreat to?

As an example
5 Allied Force A Ships
20 Allied Force B Ships
3 Allied Force B supplied by Force A Ships.

If they retreat separately, which retreat priority rules apply?

In effect, could Allied Force B retreat all of it's forces so the Force A supplied Force stays in Supply, but the bulk of the Force B is out of supply (by selecting one of the 3 Force A Supplied ships as the Flagship).

In addition could the Force A and Force A supplied Force B ships retreat one way - and Force B other ships retreat to a different hex (as the priorities of supply and supply range produce different retreat hexes)?

Thank you

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, February 23, 2020 - 02:32 pm: Edit

I think this is how you disentangle such things:

Regardless of how twisty things are, you CANNOT ever retreat ships of the same empire to two (or more) different hexes. There is no rule enabling such a thing.

If some of an empire's forces could be supplied, whatever the means, and some cannot (for example a force with X-ships and non-x ships have different supply ranges) then you must retreat into the hexes where some of the force would be supplied. If some of an empire's forces would be supplied in hex A but not hex B. and other parts of that force would be in supply at both A and B or just B, then you can select either hex A or B as you like (but not both, see above).

These principles should enable you disentangle your supply situation.

By Timothy Linden (Timlinden) on Tuesday, February 25, 2020 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Regarding how drone bombardment would work versus webs - Swordfish drones (with a phaser as the warhead) would work fine. They move into the web, shoot the ship(s) maintaining the outer web. Not particularly easy to do, but would make sense that any DB versus tholians would use up those swordfish drones as a priority.

And technically an attacking ship could theoretically tractor said tholian ship maintaining the outer web and drag it into a stack of regular drones in the outer web. Even less likely to happen, but certainly potentially possible.

Tim Linden

Tim

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, February 25, 2020 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Tim,

If I get time, I'll reply in the Tholian Tactics section of the Star Fleet Battles topic, why I don't think Swordfish drones present much of a problem for the Tholians defending a wedding cake.^* I may not be able to get around to it for a couple of days, however.


^*You acknowledge that

---

Quote:

Not particularly easy to do, but would make sense that any DB versus tholians would use up those swordfish drones as a priority.

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, February 25, 2020 - 06:40 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, February 25, 2020 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Appeal on an old ruling from 2007 regarding rule 448.21 and neutral zone hexes.

The following ruling by Nick Blank on annexing neutral zone hexes is in effect:

---

Quote:

(448.21) Annexed neutral zone hexes produce double income (0.4 EPs per turn). If an enemy ship enters an annexed Neutral Zone hex, it reverts to a normal NZ hex and can be captured normally.

---

This ruling is inconsistent with the effects of annexing *enemy* space. Per rule 448.23, an *enemy province* that has been annexed, if liberated, is treated as a captured enemy province until the "original" owner re-annexes the province.

Annexing neutral zones should do more than simply providing double income. Otherwise, the NZ hex is not actually *annexed*; i.e., part of the capturing empire for all intents and purposes. Allowing an enemy to recapture an "annexed" NZ hex by merely moving through it during operational movement is both counter-intuitive to the term "annexed" and also inconsistent with the effects of the far more difficult task of annexing an enemy province.

I respectfully submit that the enemy may interact with an annexed NZ hex as follows:

The enemy moves a ship through an annexed NZ hex during operational movements under the same requirements for claiming an un-annexed NZ hex. The annexed NZ hex is then considered "temporarily claimed." On subsequent turns, if eligible, the enemy receives EPs for capturing a NZ hex normally. However, unless the enemy has himself annexed that NZ hex, if the previous annexing player re-claims the NZ hexes, then they revert to being treated as annexed NZ hexes.

In other words, instead of wiping out 10 turns of claiming in a single operational move, the enemy only takes temporary ownership of the NZ hex. If the previous conquering player drives out the enemy, then the NZ hex in questions reverts to being "annexed" and thus generating double income.

[EDIT] As an alternative, FEDS could rule that 448.27 also applies to previously annexed neutral zone hexes, in addition to re-annexation of "provinces." Thus, if an enemy claimed an annexed NZ hex, it would only require five turns for the previously annex holder to "re-annex" the NZ hex in question.

---

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 27, 2020 - 06:08 pm: Edit

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, February 27, 2020 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Appeal to ruling on 302.617:

This was the ruling back in June 28, 2019:


Quote:
Q: Can a rescue tug (537.2) be used to “save” the ship that is required to be killed under (302.617)?
A: According to rule (537.223) ships destroyed by directed damage or which are trapped in a web cannot be rescued.


This appears to be in direct violation to the Spirit of the auto-kill rule 302.617. Take an empire like the Lyrans for example. They can build a LTT every turn from T4. By Turn 13, they could have 10 LTTs and essentially negate 10 automatic kills a turn. Add in the Klingons who can build them from T2 and you essentially have an alliance that is immune to 302.617.

537.2 should not be able to trump 302.617. It takes the teeth out of that rule and defeats the purpose of including it.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 27, 2020 - 06:11 pm: Edit

Rob above is not asking for a rules answer or clarification, he is outright asking for a rules change.

Can we NOT use the Q&A to campaign for rules changes and make a topic for that instead?

The rule as is certainly doesn't 'break' the game, as evidenced by all the games currently played (and having previously been played) that weren't broken by this rule.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 27, 2020 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Thursday, February 27, 2020 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Getting back into F&E after a long absence, and trying to grasp the retreat rules again.

Situation:
4 Feds are retreating from 3210. Closest remaining supply point is MAJ 3509. BATS 3206 is still alive.

Rom ships in:
3310 (18 SEs)
3311 (1 ship)
3209 (3 Rom SEs, 3 Fed SEs)
3208 (13 Rom ships, 8 ftrs, 2 Feds)

3110 is in supply (at least until 3208 is resolved), so am I forced to retreat there? Or can I do a fighting retreat over the single Rom in 3311 and end up in 3410?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 27, 2020 - 08:16 pm: Edit

I'll take a stab at Sean's situation.

You do the retreat priorities in order.

1. There are no adjacent neutral hexes so this step is ignored.
2. Any of the six adjacent hexes with more ships than the retreting force (plus friendly ships in the potential retreat hex) are eliminated. There are fiddly bits to these counts but that's the general gist of it. This step eliminates hex 3310 from cisderation, leaving the other 5 potential retreat hexes.

2. The next step says you must go to the hex closest to supply (of the remaining five hexes) I'm ignoring the fiddly bits of the exact rule here as they don't apply. Hexes 3311 and 3209 are each three hexes from the nearest supply (presumably) so the other three hexes (which are presumably four or more hexes from supply, if supplied at all) are ignored.

3. Two hexes remain as potential retreat hexes. The next step says eliminate hexes with enemy ships. As both remaining hexes have enemy ships, this step is ignored as it would eliminate both of them.

So, you can retreat to either 3311 or 3209, neither requiring a fighting retreat.

(This answers your question about whether you must retreat to 3310 with a 'no'. Not only do you not have to, you are not even able to if you wanted to).

***

Let us say that in step three, only one of those two hexes had enemy ships. In that case the hex with enemy ships is eliminated UNLESS you exercise your option to do a fighting retreat (and then you must retreat to that hex obviously). If that hex was not previously a battle hex, it is now. The attacking player does not have to resolve this retreat hex as the next battle, as with any battle hex, he may do it when he chooses.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, February 28, 2020 - 08:24 am: Edit

Richard,

I do not state that the rescue tug mission breaks the game.

But think about it, how often does the auto-kill rule actually kick in? And in those times, how likely is it that the player will have a tug or LTT on duty to negate it? I can't think of a game I've played since these rules were implemented where the auto kill actually got to KILL something. 302.617 was introduced because players were just way too good at keeping ships alive, but then we have a rule that basically lets players ignore it? Why? Why bother even HAVING 302.617?

This is just one of those things that has always bothered me. It's not super significant, it just gets under my skin. Not that I'd bother trying to escalate it further, there is no point.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, February 28, 2020 - 08:57 am: Edit

I'd also like to point out that 302.617 was part of the 2010 Ruleset. 537.2 was from Planetary Ops, which was released in 2004. Therefore 537.223 is not a truly complete list of the things which cannot be rescued, as it could not have referenced a rule that was still 6 years it the future at the time of press.

By Stefano Predieri (Preda) on Friday, February 28, 2020 - 09:34 am: Edit

From Q&A where I got no answers.

Quote:
How and when the supply status is evaluated for ships doing special raids?

In the new rules written on the last CL there is no mention of a supply check, and while it's trivial for ships in the raiding pool, it's not for ships taken from the map.

As the rules are written now, a carrier group or a series of Drone ships cut off behind enemy lines could use the special raid rules to fight a generally low risk fight (and do it in supply) and retrograde back in their grid. Is that intended?

----
That's a thing that might happen shortly in our current game, any ideas?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, February 28, 2020 - 10:05 am: Edit

Do what the rules say.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, March 03, 2020 - 02:23 am: Edit

To avoid cluttering Q&A

Why does 410.52 exist if you can just change ship homeless supply at the start of your player turn?

Yes, if a ship doesn't end on an Allied base or home grid supplied, it can't retrograde, but for example, Kzinti forces operating in NW Federation Space, or Lyrans in Western Federation Space, opening a main grid supply line to them shouldn't be too difficult.

It just seems to be a very cheap way of keeping a significant number of Carriers in supply for replacement fighters and logically, 410.52 stop this.

But with the ruling, why bother with permanent supply lines back to your own grid?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 03, 2020 - 09:27 am: Edit

An empire can only support 12 homeless ships on any given turn. If one wants to use unsupplied Fleet carriers as expensive FCRs to support hosted carriers, then the unsupplied carriers are most likely NOT being used in combat elsewhere.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, March 03, 2020 - 12:38 pm: Edit

Paul, those carriers would not receive replacement fighters for free just because they are stacked with a friendly base/planet.

---

Quote:

Q&A from CL51
====
F&E Q&A - Friday, May 20, 2016
by Mike Curtis, FEAR
Q: It is obvious that a starbase in a partial grid must pay for replacement fighters for a unit that is not at the starbase. However, it is unclear whether the starbase must pay for replacement fighters when the unit is in the hex of the starbase. These rules seem to indicate that a starbase might need to pay for replacement fighters for all units, regardless of where they are in the partial grid. Although the (501.55) reference does seem pretty clear cut, there is an ambiguity in that (413.41) deals with situations where supply is being paid for because the units being supplied are not in the hex of the starbase (i.e., when five units pay one EP for supply, they also receive 12 replacement fighters).
The confusion comes from the fact that in most of the rules regarding fighter replacement, it just mentions the obvious: the carrying unit must be in supply. However, when dealing with a partial grid, supply is handled differently depending on where the unit is in the grid. Obviously, empires that use a lot of fighters will be greatly impacted by the way these rules are interpreted as this situation happens frequently. Please clarify which way it works.
A: Yes the ships are in supply, but supply isn’t what dictates whether or not you get free fighters. What (501.5) says is that it’s connection to the main grid that gets you free fighters (the fact that you also get supply by connection to the main grid is irrelevant to the free fighter issue). Rule (501.5) gives you an alternative to getting some replacement fighters if you happen to be in a partial grid. The confusion here is the previously unwritten assumption that supply by itself dictates access to free fighters. According to (501.5) it doesn’t. Free fighters come with a connection to the main grid (which incidentally also produces supply). It works like this if you’re sitting on a base in a partial grid:
So long as the ships stay on the base or planet in a partial grid they are in supply, but they don’t get free fighters. Note that the instant you jump off the base or planet, you will be out of supply (unless of course your movement puts you into supply some other way), so providing supply per (413.41) actually does matter.
If you wish to purchase fighters for those otherwise supplied ships in the partial grid, then you must also supply those ships for purposes of (413.41), which will then benefit them if they leave the base or planet. So, each EP will provide supply for up to 5 ships and also provide 12 replacement fighters. Those 5 ships will then be in supply even if they move off the base or planet and also don’t put themselves into supply some other way. They also happen to get 12 replacement fighters per EP.
If the ships supplied per (413.41) remain at the base or planet — or pick up supply in some other way during the turn, then they’re still in supply (this time by two different methods, one per (413.41) and the other by being at the planet or base). Supply by multiple methods is irrelevant; if you’re in supply you’re in supply. However, fighters are not provided by supply; they’re provided by connection to the main grid. Rules (501.5) and (413.41) now also allow such ships to get some fighters back (12 per EP).

---