In the "Blaze of Glory" game (Karl Mangold vs. Richard Eitzen and I) it's all but inevitable that the expedition succeeds on A4. Karl has indicated that he intends to continue playing, so I'd like to clarify a few issues around the Federation attacking the Klingons:

1) For the purposes of (603.54), does the Federation attacking the Klingons after a successful expedition count as "the Federation start[ing] a war with the [...] Klingons"?

1a) If so, does capturing Fed-Kli NZ hexes count as starting a war?

2) Can the Klingons attack the Federation if the Federation does not attack the Klingons?

2a) If not and the Klingons pursue Hydrans into the NZ but fail to completely pin the Hydrans so the the Feds are activated in the operational movement phase, are the pursuing ships immediately interned (that is, before battle can take place)?

3) Can the Federation attack the Lyrans? (Not likely to happen, but I'm curious)

Chuck has previously commented (I can't find the original; I suspect this was in Q&A discussion):

> Quote:
> By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 26, 2012 - 02:46 am: Edit

> I'm inclined to discuss the following:

> CURRENT RULE
> (603.54) If the Federation starts a war with the Romulans or Klingons, the Gorns do not enter the war at all unless somebody attacks the Gorns (and then they join the other side).

> CHANGE TO READ
> (603.54) If the Federation starts a war with both the Romulans and the Klingons, the Gorns do not enter the war at all unless somebody attacks the Gorns (and then they join the other side).

> THEN ADD THE FOLLOWING:

> (603.123) If the Federation starts a war with the Romulans, the Gorns do not enter the war at all unless somebody attacks the Gorns (and then they join the other side). However, if the Klingons or Lyrans later attack the Federation; the Gorn my enter the war the as an alliance member the turn after a Klingon or Lyran attack.

> (603.124) If the Federation starts a war with the Klingons or the Lyrans, the Gorns do not enter the war at all unless somebody attacks the Gorns (and then they join the other side) or if the Romulans later attack the Federation; the Gorn my enter the war the as an alliance member the turn after a Romulan attack.

Given this, I expect the answers are:

1) Yes (but the proposed change would make it less important)
1a) Yes (but irrelevant)
2) Unclear
2a) Yes
3) No (no enabling rule)

I don't think this is particularly important, but I'd prefer some clarity.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Wednesday, December 16, 2020 - 01:39 am: Edit

[Keyword search helped, don't mind me.]

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, December 22, 2020 - 10:20 am: Edit

I never received an answer to this question. Please consider and provide a ruling. Thanks!


By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Q540.251. WHEN is income received from flipped neutral planets, on the turn the planet flips or on the next turn?

Reference from 540.251 (emphasis supplied):

Quote:

still neutral.
(540.251) Roll a die during the Economic Phase of the race that
owns the Diplomatic Team. A roll of "1 " or "2" indicates the planet
(and its defenses) have joined the team's empire at the start of
the next player turn of that empire (immediately), while a die roll
of "6" indicates that the planet and its defenses have joined the
other adjoining race.


The wording of this rule is confusing, because it says both "start of the next player turn" and "immediately".

The roll for diplomacy clearly happens at step 1B5 of the SoP. Determination of income from planets occurs afterwards at step 1C3.

Thus, certainly, it is possible that a flipped neutral planet produces income at step 1C3 on the same turn it was flipped at step 1B5.

However, the rule itself says "NEXT" player turn (all caps mine for my emphasis). So, it is possible that the rule requires the successful negotiator to wait until the following turn (i.e., neutral planet planet flips on AT2, and income starts being received on AT3).

I could have sworn there was a Q&A answer on this question, but I could not find it (though I did find ruling saying the income is "normal" income, not diplomatic income). My apologies if I failed.

Clarification respectfully requested, thank you.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, December 22, 2020 - 02:04 pm: Edit

Further additional comment to the above question regarding WHEN income is received as a result of flipping a neutral planet.

Note that if the additional income is not received in the same turn, then the player who flipped could be penalized relative to the opposing player.

Example, the Coalition sends a DIP to neutral planet 1910 on CT1. On CT2 the neutral planet flips to the Coalition. If income does not arrive till the next turn, then the Coalition does not receive income until CT3.

However, take the same facts, but now change them so that on CT2 the neutral planet flips to the Alliance due to a roll of "6" by the Coalition. Because the Alliance turn is "next" the Alliance receives income on *AT2* - which is sooner than the Coalition could have received income.

This does not seem intended - so I would argue, combined with the sequence of play citation above, that the income received from flipping a neutral planet is received "Immediately" on the same turn that the flip occurred.

Thank you.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, December 23, 2020 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Ref: Neutral Planets Joining Empires via Diplomacy (540.251)

---

Quote:

(540.251) Roll a die during the Economic Phase of the race that owns the Diplomatic Team. A roll of "1" or "2" indicates the planet (and its defenses) have joined the team's empire at the start of the next player turn of that empire (immediately), while a die roll of "6" indicates that the planet and its defenses have joined the other adjoining race. A die roll of "3-5" indicates that negotiations are dragging on.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 23, 2020 - 02:38 pm: Edit

LOOKS GOOD

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Thursday, December 24, 2020 - 02:27 am: Edit

We're trying to understand fighter factors, squadrons, and battle force limitations.

I found this in the Q&A:

"Q: A Kzinti battle force has the following carriers (plus escorts): CVL (4.5 fighters), CVE (3 fighters), 2CV (6 fighters each). For these ships, how many ship equivalents (501.91) of fighters are there?
A: You can do this two different ways. One is to count each carrier separate: CVL = 4.5 fighters = 0.77 ship equivalents (SE), CVE = 3 fighters = 0.5 SE, 2x(CV = 6 fighters = 1.0 SE). You then add them together (0.77+0.5+2x(1.0)) to come up with 3.27 SE. You need to consider each group separate before adding them together. Anything less than 0.5 is dropped.
You can also, with fighter types of all the same kind, just add up all the factors and divide by the standard squadron size for that type, six in this case. So, in this example, we would have (4.5+3+2x6) = 19.5 and divide that by 6 for 3.25 SE. Anything less than 0.5 is dropped.
Note that the parenthetical (6-8) refers to the squadron size for the unit in question. A Federation CVB with an F-15 squadron would have a standard squadron size of 8 and would only count as one SE instead of 1.33 SE when counting for SE calculations."

This would appear to mean that part of Battle Force building is engineering ways to arrange to have between 3 and 3.5 SEQ of fighters (20ish, maybe 21 if you can figure out a way to round things conveniently over multiple carriers?) so you can get more than 18 fighters on the line, because the extra are "dropped" as SEQ but obviously, are still there on the carriers.

Is this right, or are we limited to a strict 18 fighters?

[I'm assuming all early war standard fighters.]

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, December 24, 2020 - 03:51 am: Edit

Graham

I think you may be combining two rules :-

1) 501.xxx refers to Ship Equivalents for Pinning purposes - and you just add all the factors up and other than combing 0.5 to 0.83 Ship Equivalents of Fighters to a crippled ship to make another equivalent, you round down.

So, 20 normal Fighters is 3 equivalents

2) For a normal Battle Force, you can only have 3 squadrons of fighters and so using your example of

Kzinti - CVL, CVE and 2CV, as it has 19.5 Fighters, via 302.334, one carrier (and in the example could be any) keeps 1.5 Fighters outside the battle line and so are not counted.

The various Federation and Improved Carriers (and oversized squadrons) may allow more than 18 Carrier Based Fighters on the line, but your still restricted to 3 squadrons.

For example - a Hydran Force with 2 UH's and a Carrier Tug, would be able to have 8 from 1 UH (Oversize Rule), 6 from the 2nd UH (limit of 1 oversized squadron) and 7.5 from the Carrier Tug (6 from the Pod counts, but the 1.5 Hybrid Fighters do not count as 'Carrier Fighters'), so would have 20 Carrier Fighters, plus 1.5 Hybrid plus other Hybrid Fighters.

The key is the 3 Squadron Limit is maintained.

(Hence why the Fed CVB is so good and sooooo expensive - 3 CVB's allows 24 fighter 'factors'.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, December 24, 2020 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Moved my comments to the correct location.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Sunday, December 27, 2020 - 06:46 pm: Edit

A question has come up concerning (320.513)

(320.0) has three advanced raids - normal, special and blockade running, so every empire has one BR slot. Now (320.513) has 'one cargo ship can be added to the raid pool in excess of the normal limit.'
To me this seems like adding a second BR slot for a cargo run (in excess). Is this correct?

Secondly, could both BRs go to the WYN Cluster (Klingons early, sending a ship for the WYN sale [must be new production/activation for Turn #1] and shipping EPs to WYNCOVIA)?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, December 27, 2020 - 07:11 pm: Edit

I don't think anyone is debating that you can do two blockade runs, so the first question "(To me this seems like adding a second BR slot for a cargo run (in excess). Is this correct?)" is moot.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, January 01, 2021 - 01:21 pm: Edit

First - Happy New Year

Secondly - Any news on 413.41/413.43 answer?

Thanks

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, January 01, 2021 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Unrelated to any current games, but partially was asked before, but not answered

1)
"By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 07:10 pm: Edit


(541.32) This states that engineer regiments cannot function in the capital hex of any race, including all three Gorn and both Romulan capitals.

QUESTION: If the capital has been relocated off map because the original capital hex has been lost can an engineer regiment now operate in the hex which used to be the capital?

I have checked the Q&A up through CL50 and cannot find an answer."

2) Related question

If a replacement capital is in an Off Map area - can an engineer unit operate and Build Minor Shipyards and Conversion Shipyards - i.e. is the Off Map area considered a 'Hex' for the 541.32 limitation?

541.33 says it can do anything in the off map area except build a Medium or Major Shipyard - which perhaps does infer it can do the Minor yards - even if the capital has been relocated.

Thanks

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, January 01, 2021 - 04:55 pm: Edit

First question is yes your engineer can now work in the former capital hex, it's no longer the capital.

Second question. The engineers can still work the off map area is not a "hex".

By Stefano Predieri (Preda) on Monday, January 04, 2021 - 10:58 am: Edit

Sure about first question Ryan?

Engeneers shouldn't work in Capital exes of any races, not only your own. I always assumed a capital exe remained so even if the capital was no longer there. If not the coalition could do really nasty things in 617 with a pair of engeneers...

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Monday, January 18, 2021 - 07:58 am: Edit

A bunch of Kzinti ships are in a Federation partial supply grid. They are not in range of the Kzinti or Federation main grid, or of any Kzinti grid. The Federation paid for 12 homeless support lines, including some carrier lines, on prior turns.

The question is whether or not the Feds can bring the Kzinti into supply and if so, what it takes.

My answer to this is that they can supply up to 12 of the Kzinti. They have to both assign homeless support lines (410.52) and pay the cost for a partial grid to supply units (413.41). For any carriers to be supplied, the Feds would have to both use a carrier line, and count any replaced fighters against the limit of 12 fighters per 1EP in (413.41).

Richard has already chimed in with his opinion on this in Q&A discussions. If there are other watcher who want to see the Battle of the Atlantic game to resume, they could do worse than to post their opinion as well.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, January 22, 2021 - 04:07 pm: Edit

602.0 Tempest Scenario rules Q:
Does there exist an updated starting order of battle for the 602.5 section Independent scenario set up? One that reflects the expansion ships?

This would be necessary for
602.55 Kzinti
602.56 Hydran
602.57 Klingon
602.58 Lyran

The Feds use of course their normal OOB.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, January 22, 2021 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Lar,

No.

R6

By Karl Mangold (Solomon) on Saturday, January 30, 2021 - 06:42 am: Edit

I have a question regarding the pinning exception (203.55) and its interaction with reserve movement. In our game there was a situation in which a reserve fleet was required to move through a hex to reach its target in which there was pinned one of my ships by two Hydran ships. Normally if a reserve fleet is required to ender a hex with enemy ships it will leave behind enough ships to satisfy pinning restrictions (203.742). However, in this case the reserve fleet could use (203.55) to leave behind 0 ships, as opposed to the one ship it would have to leave behind by the basic pinning rules.
The question is this: The pinning exception rule is normally considered optional (at least when used in operational movement, which is 95% of the time.) With reserve movement, however, we have rule (203.7421) which states that the moving reserve fleet must detach only the minimum ships necessary to resolve pinning restrictions. Does this mean that use of the pinning exception (203.55) is required, rather than optional, in this case?
Fwiw, we deliberated between the 3 of us and decided that reserve fleets are, in fact, required to use (203.55), and moved on with our game. But we respectfully request a ruling to clarify this rule interaction and determine who's argument was right (no bets were placed so the answer will not result in financial hardship for anyone.) Thanks!

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Saturday, January 30, 2021 - 12:09 pm: Edit

I have a question on pinning, which probably has been answered previously, but there are so many pages discussing pinning that I couldn't find it.

Suppose there are five Klingon ships in a hex. During operational movement, the Kzintis move five ships into that hex to pin the five Klingon defenders and prevent them from reacting to an upcoming Kzinti move. In response, the Klingons use reaction movement to move five additional ships into that hex (meaning that there are now a total of ten Klingon ships in the hex to the five Kzinti). Am I correct that this frees the original five Klingon ships to use reaction movement in response to the upcoming Kzinti move?

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Sunday, February 07, 2021 - 02:47 pm: Edit

I have a question about 308.113.

The example given has a GEDS where a Romulan fleet with a mauler attacks a carrier group and kills the outer escort (an FFE) with 10 of 21 damage points. However, in the example the Federation fleet takes an additional 11 points.

This appears to imply that additional damage past the outer escort is 1:1 even when a carrier group is directed (as the mauler was targeting the FFE). (The Fed gives up a DDE for 9 and 2 fighters to resolve the remaining 11 points.)

I would have thought that directed damage would have been scored 2:1 (meaning only five points of damage remained.) [Or, in the alternative, that the Fed would be able to give up the outer escort and then take the remaining, non-halved damage elsewhere.]

What is going on here?

Is it accurate that one can direct a carrier group and all damage past the outer escort is full value?

[EDIT: I think I figured this out. This is an example of directing the outer escort, where the remaining damage was taken by the carrier group by choice. So only the first 10 points were directed, and the rest fell, but the Fed player chose to self kill the other escort.

This seems consistent.]

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Sunday, February 14, 2021 - 04:32 am: Edit

Question on (537.32). The special raid rule (320.3) was updated in Captain’s Log #53. Rule (537.32) indicates the effect an Early Warning Network has on intercepting a special raid. However, the text for (537.32) is not compatible with the new special raid rules. What effect does an Early Warning Network have with the new special raid rules? Thanks.

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 - 05:56 am: Edit

Question on Q&A in Captain’s Log 53, on page 111, the first answer under ODDS AND ENDS (which is about monitors) ends with the following:

“While escorts are normally assigned at the start of combat (and that remains the primary time to do so), they can be assigned to a carrier in the same hex during Operational Movement and any assignment stays in force until the escort and escorted ships move to separate hexes or the owning player says they are no longer a group.”

My question is, what rule actually allows assigning an escort to a carrier during Operational Movement?

This answer seems to contradict (515.152), which indicates during each Movement Step carrier groups may be broken down but also says they are formed into groups only when the force begins a Combat Step.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 - 11:12 am: Edit

(518.2) SWAC Deployment

Q: Can a SWAC be freely transferred between eligible carriers between rounds?

(518.21) Says that SWACs can be transferred to a new carrier if the current carrier is destroyed. But is unclear on if you can freely swap them between ships in a battle hex between battle rounds.

Example:

A given battle hex has a single SWAC, Fed CVB group, a Fed CVS group, and a Starbase.

On R1, the CVB group is on the line, using the SWAC. It loses an escort to direct damage.

On R2, The CVB group is replaced with the CVS group. Can the CVS take the CVB's SWAC to use on R2?

Assuming it can, if the CVS group loses an escort to direct damage, can on R3, the Starbase take control of the SWAC to use on R3?

=============

Ref:

---

Quote:

(518.23) [extract]...SWACs cannot be transferred from carriers except by (501.6).

=========================

(501.61) BETWEEN ROUNDS: Ships and bases of the same
empire in the same hex can transfer fighters between each other
between Combat Rounds as long as the receiving unit has the
capacity to hold the fighters.

---

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 - 04:20 pm: Edit

With the pandemic continuing, my son (now 20) and I have decided to give F&E a try. It feels so odd that the last time I played F&E seriously was about 30-35 years ago. Such a wonderful game.

I dug out the old copy that I had in the house, probably 15 years old. The manual was missing, so I ordered that. From what I gather, one of the changes in the 2010 version of the game (which my copy is not) is the breaking up of carrier/escort groups from combined multi-ship counters to individual counters, with rules to create carrier/escort groups as needed when combat arises.

My copy only has the old multi-ship carrier counters. We could probably muddle through with the old counters but I'd like to get the new single ship ones and try those rules. Does anyone know which F&E counter sheets I would need to obtain these single-ship counters (both carriers and escorts)?

Also, would there by any other critical play problems that may arise with using the remainer of my old pre-2010 counter set that I should be aware of? Do I need to replace all my old counters?

For our first two scenarios, I was thinking of (606.0) THE SQUALL (played multiple times) followed by perhaps (682.0) THE SECOND FEDERATION-KZINTI WAR from Nexus #17. Does anyone have any other suggestions for simpler, shorter scenarios that we could try?

The idea of playing the entire General War campaign is of course fine with me, but I'm not sure my son knows the game well enough or is ready yet for that descent into madness. I explained to him the wonderful time I had playing an entire F&E campaign for 2.5 years back in the day, and he thought I was nuts. Perhaps by playing shorter scenarios at first, I can bring him to the dark side, slowly.....

Many thanks for any advice on these questions.

--Mike