Archive through September 11, 2020
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through September 11, 2020
I don't see a limit to only one CVBG in that link. Chuck clearly indicated that only one CVA can be used, but not that you couldn't have two CVBG's side by side, assuming all the carriers involved were mediums.
Nevertheless, I am fairly certain there is a hard limit of one CVBG per battleforce, I just can't find the rule on it at the moment.
Edit: Ah, there it is. You're right, William - 315.6 has the clear answer.
Has anyone asked if the blockade running rule (320.0), or more specifically (320.52) precludes tugs carrying MBs/PDUs? I'm thinking not, since this would include 2 units in the blockade run (seems illegal.) But, such units can only move by "carriage" and so could not participate in blockade runs otherwise, and the written rule does not specifically comment. If no, I'll just ask the question officially. Thanks.
Quote:(320.52) Carriage: A ship conducting a blockade run must be capable of carrying the item or items in question.
Tug are quite capable of carrying MBs and PDUs.
FEDS SENDS
Thanks, Chuck
Formal questions asked, but what does the peanut gallery think?
What does 'Special Free Strategic Movement' mean?
502.432 states it can only be done if the tender is in supply (so in effect similar to replacement fighters) - but 502.433 then adds that new productions are moved to the tenders 'baes, whatever' they are deployed on by special free Strategic Movement (starting at the place they were built and ending at the tender or other bases).
So what does 'Special' infer?
1) There has to be a normal 'free' of enemy Unit/not adjacent (unless more friendly in the hex) path of valid Strategic Movement Nodes (SMN) from the place they was built to the end hex and the end hex has to have a valid SMN in it.
2) There has to be a normal 'free' of enemy Unit/not adjacent (unless more friendly in the hex) path from the place they was built to the end hex and the end hex.
(Note, 502.433 seems to state the Tender is a temporary SMN for PF replacement - so 'special in effect adds a Tender to be a valid SMN node for this rule).
3) There has to be a SMN route from the build hex to the end hex, but enemy units can be adjacent to the route which has to have a valid Strategic Movement Node in it.
4) There has to be a SMN route from the build hex to the end hex, but enemy units can be adjacent to the route.
(Note, 502.433 seems to state the Tender is a temporary SMN for PF replacement - so 'special in effect adds a Tender to be a valid SMN node for this rule).
Option 1 uses normal Strategic Movement rules and so disregards the 'special' aspect of the rule, options 2 to 4 all can be interpreted slightly differently.
The closest equivalent to replacement fighters is 'Option 4' (but are less flexible than replacement fighters still - for example - a forces supplied by a Convoy and more than 6 hexes from SMN would receive replacement fighters, but would not receive replacement PF's).
So the question is - which interpretation of 'special' is correct?
My best guess is that Option 4 is correct - both form the history of the game (PF's allowed the Coalition to resume their offences) and the usability of them.
From Q&A -
Rule (435.23) says "Note that since a ship carrying
EPs cannot enter a hex containing enemy ships, this must have
happened as a result of reaction movement."
This causes all sorts of problems when interacting with retreat movement. Suppose a force that includes an EP-carrying tug is retreating.
1) What if the retreat priority rules dictate hex A, but hex A contains enemy units? Does the force retreat to hex A anyway? Or does one throw out hex A, then apply the retreat priority rules to the remaining hexes?
2) What if all available retreat hexes contain enemy units?
Stewarts comment : -
Note that (435.23) is talking about operational movement (when reaction can occur), retreat movement is part of combat the ship carrying EPs is like every other ship involved in combat
Originally I thought this was incorrect, as the rule overlooks, there are three other ways a Tug (or other units) carrying Ep's) could end up in a Combat hex.
1) The Enemy retreat into the hex from an adjacent battle
2) The Enemy could send a reserve fleet 'over' the hex with the Ep carrying unit it in (and drops the minimum required force off)
3) The Enemy could operationally move into the hex with it (and so I think the word 'reaction movement' is probably the game tactic of reacting to and so attacking the Ep carrying unit rather than Reaction Movement rule).
After re-reading 435.23 - I am even more confused.
As Stewart said though, it perhaps is easiest to ignore the restriction in 435.23 and allow the ship to retreat as a normal ship with other forces (which would have resulted in, the tug ending up in a different hex to what it did in two previous battles).
The Ep carrying unit can't enter an enemy hex, but if the enemy enters the hex it is in, the 435.23 restriction doesn't apply.
But that puts words in my own mouth - as that's not what the rules says (and so leaving a formal Q&A I think is correct).
Therefore if the wording was corrected to the following, it would avoid the issues the current wording creates : -
"Note - Units carrying Ep's may not enter an enemy hex via Operational, Reaction or Reserve Movement - and is required to be in any base battles, but it may retreat normally, even if that retreat places it in the hex of an enemy unit'.
Should the retreat enter a hex with an enemy base, the Ep carrying unit temporarily loses it's 'like a base' type protection (in rule 302.2), to avoid the problem of both sides having a base in a hex (and who would be required to offer an approach)."
That would seem to suitability restrict them 'as intended', but avoid the other issues if they can retreat (and would have occurred in 1 of the 2 battles the tug was in!).
I think that the word 'special' here means that the strategic movement is done during the production phase and otherwise is done using the non-special strategic movement rules.
I think that the barrier to entering an enemy hex applies only to operational (and reserve) movement, not to retreat. In this it would be similar to how police ships operate.
I think convoys may have a similar issue, can't remember.
To me, "special" should refer to exactly what they are talking about in the actual rule, namely that the timing is different and that the PFT can be the final SMN for the movement.
I don't see anything in the rule that talks about anything beyond that. If ADB or FEDS rules otherwise, that's fine. But I don't see anything to suggest it in the wording of the rule.
Yeah, I think special also means the PFT as the end node thing.
Shoot me!
We partially discussed this about 6 weeks ago - but it seems we missed some previous rulings.
Copied from Q&A "Sorry, another formal Q&A.
There has been various questions related to this, but there has been no explicit answer (to my knowledge) to this question.
413.41 - Can Partial Supply Grid Supply pay for Allied Ships and Allied Replacement Fighters?
As an example, can a Lyran Partial Grid provide supply via 413.41 to Klingon Ships, which are within that Partial Grid.
I believe the answer is 'No' for two reasons
1) 413.1 - and 413.4 - Refers to the 'empire' and not Allied forces.
i.e. 413.41 can only be used by the Empire who owns the Partial Grid.
2) Partial Grid and (Main) Supply Grid Terminology are not interchangeable - as per this ruling : -
(Whole question/Answer copied)
(413.41) implies that Economic Points can be produced in a Partial Grid (note that this existed before the salvage rules); (430.12) says that "only those planets linked to a Supply Grid and provences that have one or more of their hexes linked to a Supply Grid produce Economic Points"; (413.1) indicates that a Supply Grid must include one or both of the Capital or Off-Map Area; (413.4) says that a Partial Grid contains neither the Capital nor the Off-Map Area.
Q: So, Partial Grids are both permitted and absolutely prohibited from producing EP. Which is correct?
A: Both, a Partial Supply Grid is not a Supply Grid and a Supply Grid is not a Partial Supply Grid. Each has their own definition and are treated separately
It was also previously ruled that Expeditionary Fleets can not use Partial Supply Grids.
Q: On a related note, is the intent of (413.43) to prohibit expeditionary fleets (411.7) from drawing supplies from their main supply grid, through the allied supply grid(s), then through their partial supply grid?
A: That is one of the effects.
So the follow on question, it would seem logical (and because of the above distinction between Main Supply Grids and Partial Supply Grids), that equally Homeless Ship Supply can not be set up or used through a Partial Supply Grid?
Lastly, to support this, within the 413.4 Partial Supply Grid rules is '413.43 - No Allied Help'
Although this is a title, it would seem to confirm that Partial Supply Grids can only help the Empire which owns it?"
The previous rulings seem to make this clear?
In case the above is too much to parse, the question is whether or not homeless ships can be supported by partial grids.
My own view is that the homeless ships rule 410.51 simply says "a Supply Grid". If they had meant "a Main Supply Grid", they would have said so.
Of course, a homeless ships being supported by a partial grid would require the payment of the usual 1EP per five ships per turn, in addition to the availability of a homeless line.
Might be overthinking some of this!
Just noticed, it would be illogical for a Partial Grid to be able to supply more ships (unlimited in effect - as there is no limit - other than the Eps you send (up to 28 Eps via the Orions) and produced within the Partial Grid)) than the main grid (12 Homeless plus 12 Expedition (24 for the Feds)).
I think the key is to note Partial Supply Grids are not a weak version of the Supply Grids - it's a separate definition and only relevant to just the owning Empire.
The ships in question are designated homeless ships. My assumption is that homeless supply from a partial grid requires both homeless supply and partial grid supply.
I'm not reading another long winded Paul explanation on why this is all different than his previous arguments.
If Paul could sum up his latest argument in a brief paragraph, that might be helpful.
I just ask that the player thoroughly research his question before asking, then ask a clear question if he is still unsure of the answer.
Copied from Q&A - "To aid answering the two recent questions - I have simplified them.
502.43 Replacement PF's - What does 'Special Free Strategic Movement' mean?
1) End Hex can be a Tender and not a Strategic Movement Node? YES/No
2) Path from the Hex the PF's are built in to the Tenders hex, do enemy units in adjacent hexes to the path and the final hex block the resupply of PF's (204.222)? Yes/NO
413.41 - Can a Partial Supply Grid Supply pay for Allied Ships and Allied Replacement Fighters?
1) Can Allied Forces benefit from 413.41? Yes/NO
2) Can Homeless supply be used in a Partial Grid? Yes/NO (and if Yes, if an existing supply line was set up from an Allied Empire Main Grid - can it be transferred to the Partial Grid - or would it need to be cancelled and repaid for?)
To aid the court - Answers words in capitals I believe are the answers."
Hopefully that cleans them up - although the research to support the Court is contained in the main post (there is a lot of text from the partial previous answers).
Re: PFs.
I have always assumed that the PF replacement rule was basically "you can get replacement PFs during the strategic movement phase, as long as you are attached to the main grid"; the "strategic movement" part was basically shorthand for "you are connected to the main grid" so that units that are cut out of supply can't get replacement PFs, but anything that is in supply can get replacement PFs.
The PF replacement rule seems like it was specifically designed to minimize record keeping for PFs, which would be *incredibly* onerous to deal with in a physical game if it was difficult to replace them.
As such, I'm pretty sure "special free strategic movement" translates to "you can get replacement PFs to anything that needs them, as long as they are in supply of the main grid".
Re: PFs. Just reading the rule, it says strategic movement. So as it stands, I would assume that other than the fact that the tender is allowed to be an end node of the strat movement, a strat path is required, and a supply path would not be sufficient.
It would not bother me at all to change it along the lines Peter and Paul are suggesting. In addition to reducing player record keeping, I think it would be less confusing to make PFs work like fighters for this purpose. But if this is done, it should be made explicit, because their change is not what the rule currently says.
Re: homeless ships in partial grids
I think that Paul's proposed restrictions don't correspond with the text of 410.51, which I will quote in part below. In particular, it says "a Supply Grid", not "a Main Supply Grid". Furthermore, I don't see any record-keeping or consistency reason to make such a change. As I read the rules, supporting an allied ship in a partial grid requires both that the race have or purchase an appropriate homeless support line and that the race pay 1EP to support 5 ships and gain 12 fighters. I think it should stay that way.
(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,
PF's - The million dollar question is what does 'special' mean.
Perhaps they are intended to be more multiple shot 1 shot weapons (i.e. use them - pull them off the front line - reuse them) - rather than attrition units like Carriers?
But from my limited knowledge of PFs (this is the first time I have got to use them in games) and 'SFB History', that doesn't seem right.
On Homeless ships - it's a similar question when does Supply Grids cover Partial Supply Grids and when does Supply Grids not cover Partial Supply Grids
(i.e. the previous ruling A: Both, a Partial Supply Grid is not a Supply Grid and a Supply Grid is not a Partial Supply Grid. Each has their own definition and are treated separately)
William wrote:
>>PFs. Just reading the rule, it says strategic movement.>>
Kind of sort of?
PF replacement happens in the Retrograde step (phase 6), not the Strategic Movement step (phase 8). It says that PFTs can be "brought up to full strength immediately", as long as they are in supply. The PFs are moved by "special free strategic movement", which is the only reference to "strategic movement" in the whole rule section, and by definition already ignores the rules for strategic movement, as:
A) It happens during the Retrograde step.
and
B) The PFs can end on PFTs that are not on strategic movement nodes.
I'm willing to be pretty sure that "special free strategic movement" is just short hand for "they can get there and don't need to be carried by anything or moved there specifically" rather than "they need to stop at a strategic movement node every 6 hexes" (which is covered by supply needs anyway) or "you can't get replacement PFs if there is an enemy FF near you".
Without answer from the powers that be, I treat it as strategic movement (ie that FF can stop you) that is special in that it can end at a PF carrying unit and is special in that it can occur at other times than the strategic movement step, and this can be done without counting against strategic movement limits (ie they don't count against your 10 or 15 or w/ever allowed strategic movement per turn)..
Otherwise, as it says strategic movement, it should use the strategic movement rules in every other way.
Richard wrote:
>>Otherwise, as it says strategic movement, it should use the strategic movement rules in every other way.>>
And yet, it doesn't actually say that. It says "special free strategic movement" (without any further explanation), and then is riddled with contradictions to the strategic movement rules. And does specifically say that PFTs can be "brought up to strength immediately". And happens not during the Strategic Movement phase. And ends in open space. And does not indicate that it uses actual Strategic Movement rules anywhere. And does indicate that it specifically does *not* use the Strategic Movement rules in any place where it talks about movement at all.
I mean, maybe the intention was to specifically follow the Strategic Movement rules, but if that were the case, why not have it happen in the Strategic Movement step? Why not point out that PFs can move to PFTs that aren't SMNs specifically, as that is not how Strategic Movement works? Why not point out "PFs moving to PFTs must follow all other rules of Strategic Movement" (or even just a reference to (204.0), like every other time a rule refers to another rule in the rulebook), which would be a perfectly easy thing to include to avoid confusion, given all other aspects of the rule? Especially given that all parts of the PF Replacement rule specifically seem to exist to prevent PFTs from ending a turn with an odd number of PFs (so as to avoid making record keeping of PFs in a physical game not hinderous to game play).
I mean, maybe you are right? But the rule, as written, seems to *really* want to just be "an in supply PFT can get replacement PFs" and seems to really not want to get caught up in the strategic movement rule limitations. As that would work against the clear apparent intention of the rule (to avoid onerous record keeping).
Yeah maybe. I didn't actually go read the rule and was just thinking about whatever 'special strategic movement' might be.
I mean, to be fair, it is certainly vague. And does specifically use the phrase "strategic movement" in the middle of "special free strategic movement", but as the rule is written, it is all really vague as to what that actually means.