Q520.62. If a MON is killed by directed damage in the same combat round as a SAF attack is being made, is the SAF still "present" and impose the -1 penalty on the SAF roll?

The question comes up because, per the sequence of play, the SAF attack is made at step 5-5E, but the directed damage steps take place before (steps 5-5B for the phasing player and 5-5C for the non-phasing player). Thus, the argument is presented that the MON is not "present" at step 5-5E because the MON was direct killed at step 5-5B, and accordingly the now dead MON does not provide a -1 shift to the attacking SAF in the same combat round.

Ruling respectfully requested.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, February 18, 2020 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Please move Q&A discussions to that topic. We need to keep this topic actual F&E rule questions and official answers ONLY.

Thank you.

FEDS

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, February 21, 2020 - 11:30 am: Edit

Question withdrawn by author - Rob Padilla found answer in the rules.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, February 21, 2020 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Q511.32: When a Capital Shipyard is replaced and finishes construction on a Spring Turn, does the Empire receive half of their yearly Free Fighter Factors in that next Fall turn?

511.32 just says that the new Shipyard can begin production on the turn after it is paid for. 431.741 says that free fighters are received by a replacement capital only after the shipyard is fully functioning again, which in this case would be the Fall turn. And 442.6 is silent on the issue.

FEDS RULING:

Unless overruled by ADB, when a Capital Shipyard is replaced and finishes construction on a Spring Turn, the controlling empire receives half of their yearly Free Fighter Factors in that year's Fall turn. In addition, based upon the precedent as set in (442.63), if a replacement shipyard becomes available for production on a Fall turn, then "it receives 50% of the annual free fighter allocation (round fractions up, so the 15 Federation annual fighters produce 8 free fighters on turn #7)."

=================
REFERENCES

---

Quote:

(431.741) These points are lost if the capital is captured (until a new one is built). The free fighters are received by a replacement capital only after the shipyard is fully functioning again.

(442.63) [extract]... If a race enters the war on a Fall turn, it receives 50% of the annual free fighter allocation (round fractions up, so the 15 Federation annual fighters produce 8 free fighters on turn #7).

---

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, February 23, 2020 - 04:19 am: Edit

Not an urgent question - but a formal answer is probably useful.

If a Tug is using Mission D (Supply Point) and it feeds it's fighters forward into an Approach Battle - can it be directed on?

(Currently, only useable by Hydran Tugs).

Our guess was 'No' - due to 'Base Like' trumping it being a Ship, but 302.211 only grants it being base like 'for the purposes of 302.2' and so it may remain as a ship for being directed on purposes.

Relevant two rules re 302.211 and 302.563 (and Tug Supply Rule 509.1-D).

Thanks

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

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 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Above, I think Ted Fay meant monitor not SAF.

By Stefano Predieri (Preda) on Tuesday, February 25, 2020 - 07:44 am: Edit

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?

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.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, February 25, 2020 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Unfortunately, FEDS cannot rewrite the plain language of the rule. May I request that you make a suggestion to ADB to consider reviewing the rule and ADB's intent on the annexation of neutral zone hexes.

Topic: F&E PRODUCTS: F&E Future Products (Near Term): F&E WARBOOK: Warbook Update – Planetary Operations (PO): PO - Section 400 Reports – Economic Rules
(448.2) ANNEXING PROVINCES

FEDS SENDS

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, February 25, 2020 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Chuck, I respectfully submit that the language of the rule is not plain. The *annexation* rule only states that provinces are annexed after 10 turns. See 448.21. The rule does *not* state what the *effect* of annexing provinces is (other than doubling NZ hex income), whereas the rules *do* state what the effect of annexing provinces is (see 448.23).

That is the reason that Nick Blank's original ruling was necessary. It was unclear from the rules (448.21) and (448.23) how annexing a NZ hex is differentiated from annexing a province, other than to state that an annexed NZ hex produces double income.

Thus, the issue remains of why an annexted NZ hex is so trivially lost, whereas it is difficult to lose an annexed enemy province. The inconsistency indicates that the original Nick Blank ruling is in error.

Of course, the answer may be "doctrine" and the answer may be that a different ruling is unsupported by ADB.

In any case, thank you for your time and consideration.

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.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, February 27, 2020 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Rule (537.223) is quite explicit:

---

Quote:

(537.223) Ships destroyed by directed damage, or which are trapped in a web, cannot be rescued.

---

By 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 Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, February 28, 2020 - 04:58 pm: Edit

Earlier Question:

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

First look to the rules and CL31 Q&A:

---

Quote:

(314.248) The Raiding ship is always in supply. The defending ship is in supply if it was in supply before the Raid Phase.

(320.25) Supply: Ships out of supply cannot conduct special raids, so ships on the map which are out of supply used for special raids would have to have a tug or LTT to provide them with supplies, see (412.2) and (537.6V).

---

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, March 01, 2020 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Can the Homeless Ship rule be clarified (/appealed)?

From the Q&A Archive.

"By James Lowry (Rindis) on Thursday, September 07, 2017 - 11:56 pm: Edit

Q501.5: This rule (/its sections) state that fighter replacements happen for free as long as a carrier is 'in supply'. Q&A in CL32 clarified (501.55)'s reference to (413.41) as meaning that any carrier not in a main grid does not receive free fighter replacements (whether 'in supply' or not). However, a ship parked on (say) an allied capital, is in supply (410.25), and is in a main grid--just not its owning empire's. Can such a ship get free fighter replacements? (Or even any fighter replacements at all though the partial grid scheme?)

FEDS: You situation you have described is found under Homeless Ships:


Quote:
(410.51) HOST SUPPORT: In the case of any ship which must draw supplies from a Supply Grid not connected to its own home territory, the host (allied) empire must pay one-half Economic Point per homeless ship (plus one point per carrier) as a onetime expense to set up production lines to provide supplies and spare parts (including fighters) for that ship. This rule does not require that the adopted ship actually be in the territory of the adopting empire, only that it can draw supplies from that Supply Grid. The owning player (not the adopting player) controls homeless ships. X-ships‡ require a special kind of support (523.14).

(410.511) If this cost is not paid, the homeless ship cannot draw supplies (FEDS: This includes replacement fighters) from the allied Supply Grid. The host need not pay the cost for all homeless ships, at least not all at the same time, and the host player may decide which ships are receiving the available support.

(410.512) Special Federation fighters cannot be provided for homeless ships by an allied empire, so the carriers listed in (302.352) would have their “nominal” fighter strengths.

(410.513) Ships still in supply from their home territory cannot be declared homeless and cannot be adopted as Homeless Ships by an ally. Ships cannot be adopted unless they are in supply from the adopting empire.


It is theoretically possible for some ships to PAY for and draw supplies (and replacement fighters) from a partial grid they control while also within an allied grid; those ships which are not supplied by the owner’s partial grid could be declared homeless if they are in supply of an ally who could pay for the homeless costs for the supported ally ships to receive replacement fighters under the Homeless Ship rules.

Remember that a ship stacked with an allied base maybe itself "in supply" but that does not mean that it can DRAW supplies for itself from that base (i.e. fighter/PF replacements, drone bombardment/SFG support, etc.)"


What does 410.52 precisely mean, as 410.562 says when a ship can be replaced (start of that player turn)?

Can an Empire replace one ship being homeless supported, with another ship, even if the original ship remains either alive, not supported by another Allied Empire or back in supply of it's own grid?

Example

30 Kzinti Ships made up of 15 Carriers and 15 Escorts is deep in Federation space and cut of from Kznti supply.

Turn X - Federation pay for 10 Carriers to be Homeless Supplied and as the other ships are on Federation bases, for Movement and combat count in supply (Except for Drone usage/Fighter replacements etc).

Turn X+1 - the Following turn, all 30 Ships remain alive, cut off from Kzinti Space and are not Homeless Supported by the Gorn (or Hydrans).

10 of the Carriers were used in combat and lost all their fighters (5 which were previously homeless supplied and 5 which were not).

Can the Federation declare the 5 non-used Carriers Homeless Supply lines will be switched to the 5 Carriers which lost their fighters?

From a game point of view - being able to switch supply from one ship to another ship, seems to reduce the penalty being out of supply - and by switching supply lines each turn, makes the penalty of carriers being out of supply nearly irrelevant.

(Being based on Allied Bases resolves the problem of general supply).

Prior to 2010, perhaps the issue wasn't major, due to Carriers being a Counter and it wasn't as easy to move own grid supplied groups, homes supplied croups and Allied Base supported to in effect swop ships over - but with Carriers and escorts all being individual, it seems that supply just carriers and not suppling the escorts - possibly makes the Supply rules and Penalties broken?

Hence clarification is required and appealed if ignoring rule 410.52 can be done, as perhaps it does need to be relooked at in light of the 2010 rules.

Thank you

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 01, 2020 - 09:36 pm: Edit

"Can an Empire replace one ship being homeless supported, with another ship, even if the original ship remains either alive, not supported by another Allied Empire or back in supply of it's own grid?"

FEDS Reply: YES. The rules clearly permit the host to chose which homeless ships he wishes to support EACH TURN.

---

Quote:

(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.

(105.0) SoP step 1D5: Purchase and/or designate support lines for specific homeless ships (410.56) or forward defense units (536.15).

---

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, March 02, 2020 - 02:16 am: Edit

Chuck

Thanks for that - but what is the point of rule 410.52 then - as if 410.562 allows you to change the ship at will (i.e. start of the player turn), what does the status of the original Homeless Supplied ship matter?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 02, 2020 - 11:32 am: Edit

Consult the Sequence of Play. One will see that the status checks of these former hosted homeless ships might well find themselves unsupplied which will limit their movement, reaction, and combat abilities for the upcoming turn.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, March 02, 2020 - 12:42 pm: Edit

Chuck - Unless I am missing something, the SOP doesn't make a difference, as if the Ships are stacked with an Allied Base, they count as in supply.

So - they could move as normal - fight and either retreat back onto a base (if it's adjacent to the battle hex) to get to retro - or more likely, have normal supply restored and then retro back to the Allied base.


But why have rule 410.52 which states when a Supply Line can be amended, if you can always change it at the start of the turn?

(Might be being thick - sorry!)

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, March 02, 2020 - 01:13 pm: Edit

To perform Retrograde Movement, you must be in supply at the time in which Retrograde Movement is used (206.31). So a ships supplied because it was stacked with a Friendly Base or Planet would not be eligible to Retrograde if it was not still on a Friendly Base or Planet (i.e. open space).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, March 03, 2020 - 04:23 pm: Edit

Question on 410.25

Does 410.25 override 410.21, 410.22, 410.23 and 410.24 (in allowing supply to the next supply check point) and immediately put the moving unit out of supply?

"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. "

i.e. - -If a ship moves off a base and they are unable to get into the supply range of your main supply grid (and the 1 Ep for up to 5 ships was not paid and it's not Homeless or an Expedition Supply Ship)

1) Should the ships then move as out of supply?

2) Should the ships then count as out of supply for combat?

My gut is saying 'no', as the rules state you note supply status at certain points and ship supply doesn't alter until the next supply (i.e. SOP) check point.

So, supply at the Start of the turn - Gives Full Movement

So, supply at the Start of the turn or a the start of that Combat Hex - Gives 100% Attack Factor

So, supply at the Start of that combat Hex - Gives retrograde supply.

But, if the instant a ship moved off a Allied base caused it 'become out of supply' and there would be a penalty for not being main grid supplied, there would be a penalty for not being a homeless (or adopted) ship and there would be a penalty if the 1 Ep for 5 ships rule wasn't paid.

Which would seem to make a lot of sense (and certainly a reason to pay the 1 Ep for up to 5 ship to be in supply)?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, March 04, 2020 - 02:07 am: Edit

Above question re-phrased : -

Question on 410.25

Does 410.25 override 410.21, 410.22, 410.23 and 410.24 (in allowing supply to the next supply check point) and immediately put the moving unit out of supply?

"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. "

i.e. - -If a ship moves off a Friendly base and they are unable to get into the supply range of your main supply grid (and the 1 Ep for up to 5 ships was not paid and it's not Homeless or an Expedition Supply Ship)

1) Should the ships then move as out of supply?

2) Should the ships then count as out of supply for combat?

My gut is saying 'no', as the rules state you note supply status at certain points and ship supply doesn't alter until the next supply (i.e. SOP) check point.

So, supply at the Start of the movement phase - Gives Full Movement

So, supply at the Start of the turn or at the start of that Combat Hex - Gives 100% Attack Factor

So, supply at the Start of that combat Hex or during the retrograde phase - Gives retrograde supply.

But, if the instant a ship moved off a Friendly base caused it 'become out of supply' and there would be a penalty for not being main grid supplied, there would be a penalty for not being a homeless (or adopted) ship and there would be a penalty if the 1 Ep for 5 ships rule wasn't paid.

Which would seem to make a lot of sense (and certainly a reason to pay the 1 Ep for up to 5 ship to be in supply)?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Asked and answered before by ADB in CL41:

---

Quote:

CL41 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q: A Hydran fleet has cut off the Lyran supply route into the captured (and now former) Hydran capital. The Klingons, however, have a valid supply path, as well as both PDUs and a BATS at the former Hydran capital. Are the Lyrans in supply by (410.4) since they’re with a friendly base?

A: There would have to be a homeless supply line (410.5) established or an expeditionary fleet (411.7) established to leave the hex and operate. The forces, per (410.25) would be in supply as long as they are in the same hex as the friendly base.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 05:33 pm

---

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 08:34 pm: Edit

204.201 says off-map areas are Strategic Movement Nodes. 207.22 says it is assumed the owning player of a given off-map area has a SMN inside that off-map area. However, 506.31 references 505.32 (which says no entry until on-map exploration is completed) and then says they can't build larger bases out there, and can only reach this area by Op Movement. Does this specific rule override the previous two specific rules?

I suspect it does, but it also begs the question of how the Romulans are getting income out of their off-map area (or does the 207.28 off-map area supply grid apply?). If 207.28 applies, why do the others not?

Perhaps this is a Warbook clarification - I suggest a paragraph on the Rom Off-Map Area in 204 and 207 would help.