Archive through April 03, 2020
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through April 03, 2020
Peter
The issue we all see is how does the Off Map income 'get' on map - as there is no current rule mechanism which allows it.
Other than saying 'it just happens'.
If the Off Map Area is cut off (or is more than 6 hexes to an on map Romulan Base), that creates further issues as the Ep's would seem to then be lost.
Not sure that was the intent.....
I think that what peter is pointing out is that there is no more need to "move" income from the Romulan off-map area into the main grid than there is to "move" income from a province that contains no bases or planets into the main grid. By virtue of being within 6 hexes of an SMN that is part of the main grid, both are inherently connected to the main grid.
The offmap is normally within six hexes of a main grid supply point and is connected that way in the same way that a province that itself has NO supply point is connected to any supply point within six hexes.
Unless there is some rule that explicitly states otherwise.
Paul wrote:
>>The issue we all see is how does the Off Map income 'get' on map - as there is no current rule mechanism which allows it.>>
The off map zone is within 6 hexes of the nearest Romulan supply point (say, BATS in 5818 and 5819). If the off map zone was a province (as it is provinces?), the income would just move from the province to the nearest supply point (i.e. a province doesn't need a supply point *in* it to provide income to the main grid).
As such, the Romulan Off Map zone presumably provides income to the main Romulan economic grid just by being within 6 hexes of a supply point, like anything else.
If by whatever arcane set of circumstances, all the supply points within 6 hexes of the Romulan off map zone were to be destroyed/captured (i.e. the 3 BATS and planet within 6 hexes of the off map zone were to be destroyed and/or captured), then the lack of infrastructure off map would become an issue, yes. All that off map income would vanish, as there is no where for it to accumulate. Agreed.
But there is nothing indicating that the Romulans need to do anything just to get the off map income in the first place.
Chuck made a ruling in Q+A that said something about income having to move *off map* by operational movement; but not a ruling about moving that income *on map* by operational movement.
ALL: See FEDS clarification on the Romulan off-map issue in the Q&A section.
Thank you, Chuck. Those are all the rules that I suspect most of us assumed were the case the whole time.
Indeed Chuck, thanks for that, I think it clears a lot up.
However, I do not think the Romulan Exploration Area (i.e. Off Map Area), can ever be a 2nd Main Grid like the other Empires have. I think the main requirement for that to be a Grid is the ability to house a capital there, which the Romulan Exploration Area is specifically forbidden to do. So a MB in their Offmap could not form a self supplying Supply Grid, just like a MB that is cut off from the Main Grid cannot.
For now, that's how the rules read. ADB would have to make that rule change stating that the capital relocation is a requirement.
Chuck, if the only thing Offmap is a MB or OPB, and there are no On Map bases/planets left, that base could not supply anything without paying for it as a Partial Grid. MBs are not self supplying and do not supply ships stacked with them.
So, if the Romulan Off Map *can* be a 2nd Main Grid, what do they need the MB or OPB for? That means the Off Map area itself is a supply source. Which it isn't, since it needs the MB or OPB just to have a SMN or a place to collect EPs.
The Rom Off Map is a very different animal than every other Off Map area. It's far more akin to the Klingon Exploration Area they lease, which clearly could not be a 2nd Klingon Main Grid.
Maybe a rules change is needed here, but I do not think so. But if one is needed, then this should be a high priority Warbook item, as it needs clarifying ASAP.
While the rule may or may not need changing, it's not unclear at all and is certainly not a priority.
Colonies can also be established the Rom off-map...
Quote:(446.5) COLONIAL BASES
A colony built as above could be improved to the point that it joins the "supply grid" by several means. Obviously, building any of the existing base types (BS, BATS, SB) in the colony location makes it part of "the grid". There is, however, another means of accomplishing this goal.
(446.51) Base: A player could build a "Colonial Base" (CB) in a hex where a colony was established by (446.1). This would function as a mobile base except that it could not be upgraded (to an MB or any other base), has no crippled side, and could not be dismantled and moved...
Richard, it may not be a Priority to you, but I have seen games where it has mattered, and the Romulan Off Map can be cut off fairly easily once they are on the defensive. If it can be a 2nd Main Grid, that a BFD (Big Frigging Deal), which means their Offmap is a Supply Source in and of itself, even though the rules go out of their way to make sure the players understand that it's for "exploration only".
If it's a Main Grid, then it has no need for any type of base, except for the purposes of Strategic Movement.
For the sake of discussion, the Roms are going to struggle to find five off-map provinces (which would allow colonial development there). Using average rolls and my best case assumptions:
plain 3xSR: 10(7.5) exploration income on T23/F179
3xSR+PT: two turns earlier T21/F178
Absolute maximum effort 6xSR+PT: T18/S177.
The latter costs the Roms three SP hulls, a PT and 39 EPs (44 if you want to value the PT at 5 EPs).
They could try the high-risk survey crapshoot, but crippling your SR out there is not good.
Quote:By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 02:19 pm: Edit
Can the Klingons carry a Prime Team on the D7E or D6E that strategically move through the Lyran Empire on Turn 1?
Yes. The Klingons receive a PT on turn 1 under (522.0) They are at war, but under certain diplomatic restrictions to make it appear to the Kzintis as though they are not allied with the Lyrans on turn 1 even though they are. See (601.161).
As such the PT can be assigned to either survey ship under (522.44) or sent else where at the Klingon player's discretion.
The answer is no using the rules that I suspect most of us assumed were the case the whole time - only diplomats and the ships carrying them (and the two specific survey ships) can leave Klingon space on Turn 1. As you know, the diplomat technically includes a prime team, hence the question.
Quote:(522.2) MOVEMENT
Prime Teams can be carried by ships or can move (without actually being on a specific ship/counter) by Strategic Movement (without counting against the Strategic Movement limit) but must end that movement at a base or other unit.
FEDS is not aware of any prohibition against the Klingons from carrying a Prime Team on the D7E or D6E that strategically move through the Lyran Empire on Turn 1.
I am concerned that 601.1611 specifically restricts the Klingons on Turn #1 "cannot leave their territory" and the survey ship rule only specifies survey ships may cross Lyran space by strategic movement on Turn #1 (rule in SO I believe so I can't cite it from work). So does cannot leave their territory apply to PTs? Are there any other exceptions to this quite specific rule?
A maximum survey effort Klingon would build a third SR on Turn #1 - can it enter Lyran space on Turn #1? I think that is the current exception list to 601.1611 (existing D7E and D6E, new build/conversion SR, existing D7N or D6N, new build/conversion D7N/D6N, new build DT, transport for new build DT, new build PT).
Alan, here you go:
(703.11) HOME FLEET (EXPLORATION): Set up in 1411. May deploy to Lyran Off-Map on Turn 1 (Y168F). (601.1611)
Support Ships: D7E, D6E.
A newly built D7E or D6E or an activated D6 converted to a D6E could also move to the Lyran Off Map area with the PT in question to begin surveying on Turn 2.
Not sure that helps, since both that rule and 542.22 reference the two ships (D7E and D6E), and 542.22 specifies the unique Turn #1 movement. They are quite specific, and the specific always overrides the general.
I don't see anything preventing a PT from being assigned to D7E/D6E before they move in the Strategic Movement Phase … (Both SRs start in the capital and the PT(s) is(are) also in the capital) ...
In FEDS opinion, a PT is assigned to whatever ship it is on as part of the ship’s crew. So unless overruled by ADB, Klingon survey ships may carry PTs during their turn 1 deployment.
FEDS SENDS
Just checking my thinking is valid
313.41 - Paying 1 Ep to supply up to 5 units/12 replacement fighters...
...If a partial grid has produced 3 Ep's, you could spend up to 3 Ep's to supply up to 15 ships (and 36 normal replacement fighters) - but you couldn't use 410.341 (Orion Pirate Ep transfer) to say send 4 more Ep's, which would be reduced to 2 Ep's due to the bribe), so supply another 10 ships (+24 normal fighters).
An existing partial grid couldn't spend Eps over and above the partial grid production value to similarly increase the number of supplied ships?
I.e. There is a difference between produced Ep's and stored/transferred Ep's for calculating the maximum number of ships which can be supplied?
(Will continue looking though post 2010 413.41 questions later, in case I have missed a ruling or anything 
)
Read through all the post 2010 ones and a lot of the pre-2010.
I would say my thinking is correct as it refers constantly to 'Produced' Ep's.
By supply Ep's via Orion smuggling or partial supply grids, does still provide value though - as the produced Ep's can pay for the ship supplies and Ep's used for repairs.
As far as I know, you can use EPs produced in a partial grid as well as Orion smuggling.
If you think otherwise, perhaps Q&A is in order.
So am I out of the realm of reason to be confused by the extended Fighting Retreat rules (that led to my most recent rules question, that I in no way question the ruling on)?
So looking at that section (302.775), we got:
If you fighting retreat into a hex with a friendly base or base like unit, there are 4 different possible outcomes (with possible sub outcomes).
A) If the hex has a friendly base (but *not* a "base like unit"), the Fighting Retreat penalties (BIR0/10) only take effect for the approach battle, and then the fighting retreat force just joins the base and it stops being a fighting retreat.
(Q: Why would the defender accept the approach battle in this instance? The rule doest seem to *force* an approach battle...)
B) If the hex has a friendly *base like unit* (but not a *base*), and you have more total friendly units than enemy units in the hex (including retreating force), Fighting Retreat does not apply at all.
(Q: Why sometime is it more advantageous to retreat into a hex with an FRD than it is a SB?)
C) If the hex has a friendly "base like unit" (but not a base), and you have fewer friendly units in the hex, the retreating force is under the Fighting Retreat penalties and must immediately retreat after one round of combat (the approach battle, but again, why would they accept the approach battle as the defender? I suppose the *attacker* could be fighting retreating into a hex with a friendly, base like unit that is under heavy attack somehow on the attackers turn?)
D) The hex contains an enemy base or "base like unit", the retreating force just offers an approach (which the enemy may just decline) and then immediately retreat.
So other than point D, all of these are arcane and seem weird.
Two of first 3 (A and C), all involve an approach battle penalties for the retreating force, but as they are retreating into their own base and/or "base like unit", why would they possibly accept the BIR0/10 approach battle? At which point the penalties of the Fighting Retreat seem irrelevant.
This rule is weird. Mostly I'm just trying to suss it out, and looking for answers to things that I don't quite understand.