Archive through June 18, 2020
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through June 18, 2020
Exactly (i.e. "what Richard said"); there is nothing that specifically says "You can do X" in this instance. But there are rules that say, in a general sense "You can do Y", and not rules that say "You can't do Y in this specific instance".
So (531.50) says Starbases can build FFs. And (413.4) doesn't say "Starbases can't build FF's if they are in a partial grid".
Thanks, guys.
When I usually read game rules I look nfor the enabling rule. There are a lot of specifics in the partial grid rules. This wasn't one of them I could not find.
Yeah. this is very much one of those "There is a general rule (SB can build FF), and no specific rule that counteracts the general rule, so the general rule keeps being a general rule" situations :-)
(314.0) Raids
How does the initial combat (314.25) interact with Alternative Attack (314.28) in regards to resolving the initial combat results?
For example (using an actual one in a game right now):
A Kzinti DNL raids a planet that is being garrisoned by an F5L and an E4. The F5L and E4 can fight the DNL together as the initial battle, before the Alternative Attack happens. If the DNL is not chased off or damaged, but the F5L and E4 resolve a casualty from the initial battle as a retreat, what happens?
A) The Klingons retreat, and there is no opportunity for the Alternative Attack.
B) The Klingons retreat, but not till after the Alternative Attack, so the DNL can then engage one of the two ships (assuming one survived the first fight) in an Alternative Attack. And then maybe can retreat again?
Is this actually clarified anywhere?
@Peter: I believe I asked and had answered a related question. The Klingons will retreat - but the not until after the alternative attack is resolved.
I'm trying to understand how the flagship selection rules play out in battles with allied ships present. (I think we've been playing very wrong by doing the flagship selection separately for each empire. E.g. first deciding if it's a Lyran or Klingon Battle Force, then using the three highest CR ships from that empire only.)
Case A.
Lyran have 3 DNs in a battle hex, and 3 other ships. The Klingons have a 3 D7Cs and 20+ other ships.
Does this mean that Lyran have to lead the Battle Force? (At least until a few Lyran ships gets killed and we get to case B)
Case B.
Lyran have 3 DNs in a battle hex, no other ships. The Klingons have a 3 D7Cs and 20+ other ships.
Since Lyran can not put up a legal Battle Force, the DNs are excluded from flagship selection. Thus, a D7C have to lead the battle force.
Does this mean that the 3 DNs are pointless and can't join the battle, since they have higher CR than the flagship and refuse to take orders from a puny Klingon ship?
Case C.
What happens during capital assaults? Are flagship evaluation reset after each Battle Force? I.e. it's possible to put your three highest CR ships in one system, then examine the remaining ships to determine flagship candidates for the second system and so on?
Case A the Lyrans can provide the Flagship provided all Lyrans are in the battle force and no battle force augmentation rules are used to add more than 5 Klingon ships. Drone Bombardment may be the exception to that.
Case B The Lyrans can be in the battle force, but the Klingons will have to provide the flagship, so, excluding battle force augmentation rules, the Klingons can command a maximum of 9 ships minus any lyran ships included in the battle force.
Thanks Turtle!
Case A. Ok, but does it mean that Lyran have to lead, and thus that you can't augment the battle force with the free (Klingon) scout, drone ships, command points etc.?
Case B. Where is that described? 302.33 states "The ship in the Battle Force with the highest command rating must be the flagship"
Hmm, it seems like it would be really easy to accidentally screw yourself when using a combined Lyran-Klingon force, due to the huge command disparity between them. I kind of liked our incorrect way of handling multi-empire forces better. It feels more intuitive and simpler.
Case A Ex: Flagship L-DN, 2xDN, 3xCL, Any 5 Klingon ships, plus a Klingon Scout in the Free Scout box. Battle Groups could not be used as that would make 6 Klingon ships actually providing combat potential to the battle force. A Lyran diplomat could allow other things to come in to play here.
Case B could be modified if the Lyran-Klingon force is controlled by the non-phasing player. In which case the numbers would change again.
I assumed that the Klingon-Lyran force was the phasing player in your questions above.
Case C I'm not sure what you mean and it may be better to ask that one in the Q&A and get an answer from FEAR, FEDS or GOD.
Karl
"Can an "expeditionary" base connected to my grid through an allied grid supply the 20 ships in my fleet, without having to declare them expeditionary as well? The rule on expeditionary fleets does not mention any specific restrictions on the bases drawing supply as an expeditionary fleet. "
Not a formal answer, but I believe the answer in effect is 'no'.
The base may gain full supply for itself, but it doesn't gain the ability to supply other units.
What it does do is allow the base (and any FRD) to repair allied units (at normal cost) and receive replacement fighters if it had any.
The downside of using Expeditionary Supply is that you must then keep the moving units within 6 hexes of the base (so reaction/retreat could cause those units to lose supply.
Paul: I asked because it seems to be technically allowed (I don't see anything saying that a base in supply, regardless of how supplied, is treated as a regular supply point, full stop.) It feels wrong though. Which is why I ask.
Stewart (long answer) to answer your question in Q&A, I adopted a "Hydran First" strategy (they're on the ropes ATM) and redirected too many ships to the Hydran Theatre (disproportionately Lyrans as they went after the Enemy Blood SB; it is now S170). I had early on gone for the jugular at 1401 and neglected to clean up the rest of Kzinti space. The Lyrans hold 1001 (and destroyed the counts SB) but this is unfortunately 7 hexes from 1307. A remnant of the Dukes fleet, holed up on 1105 went on the offensive and had destroyed the 1107 BATS while I was devastating Kzintai. Then he made an incision into Klingon Space, (with cover from home fleet counterattacks on the Klingons and a Marquis assault on 1707 (!)to draw Klingon reserves, as well as a Barony pin of my reserve at 1001. An advance group from 1107 (which I thought was just a BATS busting mission) advanced to 1109 and fought some reacting fighters and a few of my uncrippled ships, that retreated toward Lyran space in 1009. Now, however, the remainders in 1307 are mostly crippled (an FRD is there also, hence my question about spending repair points for an exp fleet.) Long story short, I got caught with my pants down and have already learned my lesson. The Kzinti will feel the wrath, rest assured.
Karl
Easy answer is what enabling rule states a Expeditionary Base becomes part of the main supply grid - and give stuff stacked within it and within 6 hexes, full supply?
There isn't - the base acts as in supply, but it still isn't connected to the main supply grid.
There isn't a specific enabling rule, that I can find. But the rules aren't clear about how an "expeditionary base" operates. Clearly homeless ships and expeditionary ships are two different things in how they are described and treated: in the former your ally is using their grid to supply your ships (they pay) and in the latter you use their infrastructure to connect extended lines back to your grid (you pay.) At least that is my understanding, having read the same 2 pages of rules dozens of times.
Now, if they can't draw supply from the main grid, what actually is the point of "expeditionary bases?" The base in this situation is itself in supply per (410.54), but cannot provide supplies (specifically as an exception to 410.4, that units stacked with a base are always in supply.) Presumably adding the base to an expeditionary fleet gives it the ability to supply friendly ships. But does that mean just that hex (effectively restoring 410.4) or does it become a bona fide supply point? The rules as written do not clarify this point, and is the crux of my question.
Additionally, it is unclear if this expeditionary base would be able to repair using the main grid (I.e. like normal) or if it is considered in its own one hex partial grid and needs EPs smuggled in one way or another to pay for repairs.
Ultimately, the specific benefits conferred on bases by being part of an expeditionary fleet are not clear. Up to this point I have only used the expeditionary fleet rules for ships like a normal person, so it has never come up before.
I think clearly the intent is that expeditionary fleets provide a way to supply individual units in a limited fashion, rather than just supply one MB which can then supply 500 ships of the same empire.
If that was the intent, I think the rule should say so.
I absolutely agree the intent was probably not to allow a stranded base to supply an infinite number of ships. But what exactly then, is the intent behind including a base as part of an expeditionary fleet? A base itself is always in supply (its ability to supply other ships being the variable.) There would have to be some other benefit conferred by designating an expeditionary base. Do they supply ships in that hex only? 6 hexes like a normal base? Provide fighter replacement? Pay for repairs from the main grid? It's not clear.
Mobile bases are not always in supply.
NOT A RULING BY FEDS.
Request for Amicus Curiae
REF: Expeditionary base interactions with other non-expeditionary units of its own empire
From my initial reading of the Expeditionary Fleet rules, it seems that the specified expeditionary base can only support DEPLOYED units of an expeditionary fleet that are within the same cluster of units within six hexes of each other.
Or stated another way, it seems that unsupplied units NOT stacked on an expeditionary base:
- Cannot claim that expeditionary base as a supply point.
- Cannot be used to resupply units (PFs, fighters, G factors, etc) not assigned to an expeditionary fleet.
- Cannot act as a supply point for retreat purposes for unsupplied units.
- Cannot generate salvage.
However, since an expeditionary base itself is in supply, it seems that the base could:
- Perform its repair functions normally on any unit stacked with it.
- Build its allotted number of PFs and distribution them to any eligible units in its hex OR to other deployed expeditionary units within the same cluster of units within six hexes of each other.
FEDS REQUEST: Does anyone want to add to these two lists as FEDS will accept any Amicus Curiae that is supported by cited rules before FEDS, FEAR and /or ADB makes a ruling? Please note that FEDS cannot accept one's opinion so please backup your assertions with the rules.
Presumably one could use Orion smuggling to supply units through such a base as one can with a partial grid?
Copied from Q&A topic - what does the peanut gallery think?
Question Homeless Support (410.51)
Sorry to chase - can I have a formal ruling on this?
Same question re-worded to hopefully make it easier.
Is it legal for a Homeless supplied Carrier to transfer during the transfer phase of combat it's surviving fighters to an Out of Supplier Carrier which is short on fighters - and for the Homeless Supplied Carrier to receive replacements at the end (or start of their turn) of a player turn?
As the Fighters have been voluntarily transferred and not lost , the answer I believe is no.
Example - Kzinti CVA transfers 9 surviving fighters to 3 Kzinti CVE's which have no fighters left .
CVA then receives 12 replacement fighters.
i.e. 1 Homeless supplied fighters is replacing 4 carriers with fighters (itself and 3 others).
(Counter would be, if the CVE's are not on an allied base, they will be counted Out of supply - but if stacked with the an Allied base, there is no penalty - but they are getting free attrition units still).
Thank you
I think you should find explicit contradictions before challenging rules that are pretty solid.
I'll quote 411.71 "Effect: The ships of an expeditionary fleet are able to use allied supply points to create a supply path back to the supply grid of their own empire. Ex: a Kzinti fleet in Romulan territory could draw supplies from its own capital through the Federation supply grid."
This wording is what originally started me on this topic. The base surely wouldn't be considered a partial grid if it was drawing supplies from the capital? If so, it (and an FRD also included as expeditionary) would pay for repairs as normal, rather than using Orion smuggling like a partial grid would.
Paul, Chuck answered but note that this is only during the Combat Phase (and could be done as part of retreat)!
To be fully transparent what I would hope to achieve by extending the Hydran SR class until Y170F is this...
I personally like the survey rules in their ability to add income in the future. I also like the High risk survey rules giving a chance for success (or failure) is a game I am willing to play. This first one would be built (probably converted) as an SR or SRG from an LN.
I may like to build a second one of these as an SRV because I like the concept of EW and fighters in the group even though its a terrible group (in terms of compot).
I can't see there ever being scads of these where they would be considered an abuse since there are better Hydran ships and SRs are limited severely in production.
First of all, what are you doing out here, you are supposed to be in the Cyberboard basement, finishing the next gamebox.
The Hydran SR is obsolete for a doctrinal reason. As I pointed out in my (illegal for the Hydrans I was shown) tac note, the Hydrans could generate a significant amount of additional income with max survey ships - enough to render the established timeline not viable. In other words, instead of being kicked offmap and rendered a nuisance, the Hydrans could come roaring back from their offmap bolthole. Note the Hydrans cannot currently expand their survey ship numbers due to SIT dates and timeline reality (the newer hulls become available when there is no shipyard or income to build them).
Hahaha rest assured I have a completion schedule I am following. I only came up for a sandwich and some social distancing commentary. 
I disagree and believe it is not as major of an issue as you make it out to be at all.
Its more a give and take.
Does the tacnote address having them spend 6 for the 2 additional slots plus 10 EPs (giving up their TWO major conversions) or upto 24 EPs if the build them outright and pay for useless fighters (which then are not available to be absorbing damage over and over every turn)?
The damage sponge loss has value and having two less hulls available to defend the space is as well. Its a hard decision to make investing in the future when you are facing the SEQ numbers the coalition has early on. The Coalition only has to take the Hydran capital down once. As the Hydran know your capital is (more often than not) 'doomed'.
The Hydrans usually come roaring back on map if played well even if the coalition doesn't make a bunch of mistakes. The coalition has the tempo point in how effective this can be however.