FEAR hurt his back but was back on duty for CL54.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, September 19, 2020 - 03:00 pm: Edit

I’ll look into this later this weekend. -FEDS

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, September 19, 2020 - 06:35 pm: Edit

FEAR: Do not try to pick up both the SFB rule books and all the SSD books at the same time!!!

Also, do not try to move your entire F&E counter collection at once!!!


Garth L. Getgen

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Sunday, September 20, 2020 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Garth, you have to make sure that they're packed right the first time to move them (especially the counters), packing material is important!

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, November 26, 2020 - 08:51 am: Edit

The Klingons are pursuing a Hydran force containing two crippled HR. One of the HR is in the formation slot. The Klingon player wishes to kill both HR, using a 10-point mauler. How many damage points does that cost?

Relevant rule:

(308.452) Maulers used to attack other units with the Formation
Bonus (308.72) are discounted by 50%; round fractions of 1/2
up. This reflects the difficulty in attacking such a target. A ten-
point mauler would count as five points and a seven-point mauler
as four points. Note that both types of mauler would still contribute
their full combat factor to the basic combat potential of the
Battle Force.

Literal reading: The mauler is being used to attack a ship in the formation slot. Therefore, it mauls like a 5-point mauler. It mauls for 5, and the other 3 have to be paid at 2:1. So the total cost is 11 points.

"Spirit" reading: The mauler acts at half effect vs. the formation HR and full effect vs. the other one. So it can maul the formation one for 4 and the other for 2. The other 2 points have to be paid at 2:1. The total cost is therefore 10 points.

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Thursday, November 26, 2020 - 11:29 am: Edit

Given that it's equivalent in every other case, just find the total normal damage amount and subtract 10 (but no more than half). In this case, you've got (4*3)+(4*2)=20, and 20-10=10, so it takes 10 damage.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, November 26, 2020 - 02:04 pm: Edit

Why maul if the damage is 6 or more points? Simply allow the damage to fall and avoid the mauler shock roll. Six points will destroy the first HR for 4 points and the remaining 2 points of damage must be resolved if the damage remaining to be resolved is 50% or more of the other crippled ship.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 26, 2020 - 02:10 pm: Edit

'Cause there are at least 3 other uncrippled ships on the line that will absorb the damage, presumably, and the pursuing force wants to kill some ships.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, November 26, 2020 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Peter is correct.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, November 27, 2020 - 04:30 am: Edit

Sorry, the statement made no mention of the non-cripples.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, November 27, 2020 - 08:06 pm: Edit

Thinking about it, what is the priority between the formation and non-formation ship in regards to the mauler?
[If the formation ship is the priority, the mauler is reduced for both ships, or if the non-formation ship is, the mauler is used normally then the remainder is reduced for the formation ship.]

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, November 27, 2020 - 11:18 pm: Edit

A quick question that seems like the answer should be obvious but...

Rule 306.3, Cloaked approach, says that in order to use the cloaking device to avoid approach, every ship in the battle hex has to have a cloaking device.

Crippled ships cannot use a cloaking device.

However... crippled Romulan ships *do* have a cloaking device, even though they can't use it, so in theory, a fleet of Romulan ships *could* avoid approach battles, even if some of them were crippled.

Do we have a ruling that says otherwise?

By Trent J. Telenko (Trent_Telenko) on Sunday, November 29, 2020 - 02:40 pm: Edit

Mike Curtis,

FYI,

I am pointing out an inconsistency between one of your answers in CL50 Q&A and one by your predecessor Nick Blank regards fighters and PF's escorting troop ships.

This was your answer:

CL50 Q&A By Mike Curtis
=======
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
TROOP SHIPS

Q: The escorts assigned to a troop ship only need to be crippled to allow directed damage on the troop ship itself, but how exactly would a squadron of fighters (assigned to escort the troop ship) be crippled? Would it be half of the fighter strength? Just killing one fighter factor since at that point it is no longer a whole ship equivalent, or something else?

A: There is no provision for “crippling” a fighter or PF unit, so you would have to completely destroy it before using directed damage on the troop ship. As with a warship escort, the directed damage attack on the fighters and the subsequent directed-damage attack on the troop ship all count as one directed-damage attack for purposes of the limits on how many directed-damage attacks can be made.


This was Nick's answer to a similar question in -- I think -- April 2007:

8) Since (521.374CO) says fighters or PFs can be escorts for ground combat ships, and (521.372B CO) says that the escorts must first be crippled for an escorted ground combat ship to be destroyed by directed damage, exactly how many fighters or PFs are destroyed when a fighter squadron or PFF are crippled in this role?

ANSWER: 1/3 of the attrition factors of each ship equivalent must be destroyed. Possibly this will change to 1/3 of the PFs (instead of PF factors), but right now the rule is to track factors (possibly generating a minus point when PFs are involved).

I realized various rules sets have changed since 2007. However, I had a published F&E tac-note in one of the Captain's logs on how Hydrans could use their fighters to escort troop ships in retaking their capitol defended by a Coalition SB.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, December 05, 2020 - 06:33 pm: Edit

A tug in a hex is upgrading a BATS to an SB. During the opposing player turn, an attack on the hex is made. The attacking side then retreats out of the hex. The defending side decides to also retreat out of the hex. Neither the tug nor the base has been destroyed, or even damaged, during the battle.

My gut is that since the tug cannot move (433.41A), it would remain in the hex with the base, and the upgrade would be unaffected. That said, I've been wrong about this sort of thing before, so I'm interested in other points of view.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, December 05, 2020 - 07:15 pm: Edit

Think the tug retreats with the defending force unless only an approach battle was done ...

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, December 06, 2020 - 05:21 am: Edit

I would partially agree with Stewart - although if any retreat is done, the Tug would retreat.

The upgrade tug is under the same restrictions as a Supply Tug - i.e. it can't move 'to complete its' mission, but it can move.

i.e. - If the force retreats - the Tug would go with the retreating forces - irrelevant to what it's mission was.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, December 06, 2020 - 07:48 am: Edit

I believe the Tug retreats with the others. However, the base upgrade is still completed by those ever efficient staff officers that no one ever sees. See (433.41) A

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, December 06, 2020 - 08:45 am: Edit

That would be a reasonable interpretation. The rule only says that the upgrade completes if the tug is destroyed. It might not hurt to insert the phrase "retreats or" to make that explicit.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, December 06, 2020 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Not sure retreating would permit the completion

1) The 'hard working staff offices would surely retreat' with the other forces?

2) There could be some consequences with the larger base upgrades.

If your upgrading to a SBX from a SB for example, if you allow the defenders to retreat AND complete the upgrade - the only way to kill the upgrade would be to kill the base.

In a capital hex (with partial retreats permitted) that would allow upgrading Tugs to retreat and remove the chance of a valuable tugs being killed.

Currently I believe, forcing the defender to retreat or killing the base (or Tug if it's being emplaced) gives two routes to kill it.

I think the relevant question is, if you retreat, can any upgrades or emplacements occur?

I think the answer would be no - but could always be wrong.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Sunday, December 06, 2020 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Speaking of retreating.

How does a mix of slow and not slow units retreat if the defender retreats off a starbase (giving it up for lost).

Per 302.741, it appears that the combat units can retreat (and can't be pursued), but that the auxiliaries "remain" with the base (per the last three sentences) and cannot retreat at all.

But then there is a procedure for auxiliaries retreating provided in 302.742. Which doesn't mention bases. So, um, what if you have both?

Literally, it appears that 302.741 prevents the aux ships from retreating until after the base is destroyed, but I can't figure out why the auxiliaries would choose to go down with the ship if the military vessels had high tailed it.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Sunday, December 06, 2020 - 05:25 pm: Edit

I found this earlier in the Q&A:

If all the ships in the capital retreat, can slow ships retreat if there is still a base active over the capital or are they forced to fight it out. 302.741 and 302.742 could use some clarification.

ANSWER: The rules you stated seem clear that they cannot use their slow retreat rule until all bases are destroyed. Rule (302.741) says if you retreat but leave a base, then slow units stay with the base.

If there are 2xLAV, 3xSAV, 2xFTS, LAS, LAD, 3xSAD, FTL, SAS. Can the pursuer direct on all these ships even those that are not in the actual battle force? Do I have to take damage on ships not in the battle force if he does not direct or just ships in the battle force? My opponent claims that 302.742D means he can direct on any slow ships (though on one) and that they all must take the damage even if not in the battleforce

ANSWER: If there is a base left behind, then these units will be at the base, and will be in the battle force. So they could be directed on. Once the base is destroyed, any remaining slow units then go to rule (302.742) and if they survive that last battle round without the base retreat by the 3 hex retro rule.

[Okay, that's kind of what I thought. But what is the "3 hex retro rule"? 302.742(C) clearly states the units retreat one hex...]

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, December 06, 2020 - 09:42 pm: Edit

Graham, the old 3 hex retro rule for auxiliaries was removed during the 2010 rulebook upgrade and carried over to the other updated and new rulebooks. In my opinion, the 3 hex retro rule never should have been in the books to begin with.

Auxiliaries can move 3 hexes, those that participate in combat on the phasing player's turn can retrograde 3 hexes to a legal retrograde point regardless of retreating from a combat hex or not. What the 3 hex retro rule did, if I remember correctly, was allow the non-phasing player to retrograde his auxiliary ships 3 hexes to a legitimate retrograde point instead of just retreating a single hex like every other warship. Thus it created a bit of an unintended advantage for the non-phasing player as they could "retrograde" their auxiliary warships into a more advantageous position.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, December 06, 2020 - 09:46 pm: Edit

William, the Tug is no longer fulfilling the mission it was assigned. However, according to (433.41) A, the supplies needed to complete the upgrade are there. This would be the case if the tug retreated after combat, or it was destroyed in combat. Remember retreat comes after the end of the combat round.

That said, I can only think of a handful of times and places where one would want to retreat from a hex where they are defending a base that is being upgraded.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, December 06, 2020 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Deleted by author, duplicate post.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Monday, December 07, 2020 - 06:05 am: Edit

Turtle, one scenario is that the attacker retreats, then the defender decides that it would be tactically advantageous to also retreat.