Archive through February 27, 2021
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through February 27, 2021
All the scenarios are a case of the attacker retreats and then the defender decides it is tactically advantageous to also retreat. Over 95% of those usually involve a battle right next to the hex just resolved for various reasons.
Thank you, by the way, between that and the Q&A we are clear and (better yet) did it the right way the first time anyway (!).
From Q&A:
Without using special exceptions, you can have three squadrons/flotillas of attrition units in a battle force from ships or from independant squadrons/flotillas. Such units from a base or PDU in the battle force are allowed above and beyond the above limit.
So:
Legal (Kzinti) battle forces:
8DN 18IFF
8DN 18IFF SB(12 fighter factors) 20PDU(120 fighter factors)
CC CVS+MEC+EFF CVS+MEC+EFF CVS+MEC+EFF
DN CVL+CC+FF CVL+BC+FF CVE+CL+FF 3IFF
Note that the last battle force cannot have more than 3IFF.
IFF means Independent Fighter Factors.
Within the full game including expansions, there are additional units and rules that may allow more fighter factors but are exceptions to the normal way of doing things.
Quote: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!
You are required to leave at least one ship behind. See (203.55). Excerpt quoted below.
Quote:If the Moving Player’s rating is higher, he may move a number of units equal to the difference in the Command Ratings out of the hex. (At least one ship must be left behind in the hex.)
Note that there are already ships in the hex to be left behind.
To expand on Richard's comment; the ship that was originally pinned prior to the reserve moving through is still there. This is another facet of the question, though; is a fleet using command advantage required to leave behind one ship (full stop) or, in general does there need to be one ship left behind by the moving fleet regardless.
If the latter is true, it would have implications beyond just reserve movement.
Karl, if any enemy ships or ship equivalents are not pinned at the time the reserve fleet enters the hex then the pinning calculations are done again against the unpinned elements of the enemy ships.
No one is arguing otherwise.
"(no bets were placed so the answer will not result in financial hardship for anyone.)"
Not even push-ups? What's society coming to?
Edit: I will be interested in the resolution of this question as the understanding will provide a teachable moment for a newb in our group (and really a baseline for all of us).
The Reserve Fleet Move requirements 'to leave the minimum required' requires both 203.5 and 203.55 to both be used.
So if the only route say goes through a hex which has a F5 v CR+CU - the Reserve Fleet has to use the Command Rating difference, which may allow the reserve fleet to not actually detach any ships in the F5 v CR+CU hex. So a reserve fleet of say a D6 and 8 x F5 would NOT to detach anything (as the Reserve Fleet move restrictions are being met),
It would be legal to remove ships from the Reserve Fleet prior to it moving, to say 5 x F5 in the moving reserve fleet - and therefore no Command rating excess occurs, allowing 1 x F5 to remain in the F5 v CR+CU battle hex.
This is again legal - as the Reserve Fleet rules are being followed (as you can remove ships from a reserve before it moves).
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?
Hi John
Not a FEAR answer, so moved here.
Yes is the answer.
Two things are relevant when dealing with Reaction movement, as its fluid, in that ships pinned can be unpinned and then react.
1) If the ship has operationally moved - once that ship has ended it's move - even if unpinned later by a different allied force, it can't move again.
(Sub Stacks are a partial exemption to this).
2) Defencing Forces can unpin forces which haven't reacted (or have only done an extended reaction) allowing those other forces to react.
This could include a unit using Extended Reaction - which frees up a ship which can used normal Reaction - all in the same 'impulse' of movement.
Graham - GEDS
[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. }
Correct - in the Example the Second Escort is Self Killed.
Outside SFG's (IIRC) and Pursuit (or specialist ships such as Penal or G Ships conducting an assault) or directing an entire Group, there is no way to direct on more than 1 ship in a battle round.
"
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. "
Jeffrey - not a FEAR answer, so replying here.
Basically the comment confirms that Carrier Groups are actually operating as a group all the time (which in effect until flexible carrier groups got introduced - they did, the counter had all 3 ships in it) - and Flexible Carrier Group rules 'changed' this. If your playing with just the basic rules this isn't an issue, but if your playing with some of the add on rules, attacks can happen outside of combat (Raids and E&S Missions) - and so the rule basically says, if the owner wants it, the carrier is always deemed to be escorted, if eligible ships are also in the hex.
I don't know why it refers to the Op Movement rather than just saying 'deemed escorted' though 
Quote: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?
Peter, yes the SWACs can be transferred from one carrier to another eligible carrier between rounds to be used in the next round. See (518.32). While it states that the SWAC can be transferred to any Federation ship, only those allowed to use one under (518.22) could. Also, while (518.32) discusses the lost of the original carrier, the SWAC could be transferred from a carrier not on the battle line to a carrier on the battle line that had lost the SWAC it was carrying in the previous round. In that SWACs are like fighters and G units that can be transferred from one eligible unit to another.
Thanks, Thomas. That is completely what I figured and assumed, but when reading the (518.0) rules section, it turns out that it doesn't actually specifically say that anywhere.
But I always assumed they operated like fighters and G units.
Graham wrote:
>>So here is our situation:
2105 is a Combat Hex (a bunch of Feds stomping a lonely E4.)
1502 contains two Klingon reserves.
1803 contains an (undefended) BATS.
1904 contains a lonely Fed SEQ.
2105 is NOT out of supply (it is in supply from 1807 and 1707)
203.731 does not apply because 2015 is in supply.
203.732 is the issue. I would like to save the E4 and fight the Feds in 2105. Ideally, however, I would like to go fight the Feds and also land a full reserve on 1803 to kill the BATS in the meantime. So the question is; Can 203.732 be used to permit a COMPLETE reserve to access a legal objective hex, even if the reserve could still get there "in part" by leaving ships behind?>>
Ok, so trying to figure out what you are actually asking here.
So the Klingons have 2 reserves in 1502 (on the planet). There is a battle hex in 2105 that has an E4 and a bunch of Feds. There is an undefended BATS in 1803. A lone FF (or whatever) in 1904.
I'm pretty sure as there are are only 2SEQ between the reserve fleets and the objective hex (2105), the reserves *can't* go to 1803 to open the path for the reserve going to 2105. (203.732) lets 1 Reserve to to a hex to open a path for the second reserve, as long as there was no other way for the second reserve to get there. In the example you set up, there is another way for the second reserve to get there. Just go over 1803, leave behind a ship (pinned by the BATS fighters), go over 1904 (leave behind a ship for the Fed FF or whatever), and then go to 2105.
A reserve can get from 1502 to 2105 legally, just by leaving 2 ships behind (in 1803 and 1904), which does not prevent the reserve from moving (which would happen if the reserve needed to leave behind more than half of itself trying to get somewhere). But as it can go the regular way, and just lose 2 ships in the process, (203.732) doesn't apply here.
At least that's how I read it.
I think that is probably right. I read it that way too, but that wasn't how it was interpreted in the prior game, so I thought I would ask, as, well, I've been wrong before...
I might also point out that in a similar situation in my game (which was also discussed in Q&A) the pinning exception 203.55 was invoked for the reserve fleet so that fewer ships would have to be left behind. In your scenario, if the reserve fleet is question has a CR10 ship, you may not be leaving *anything* pinned by BATS fighters because battle stations are CR9. In that case this question is moot, although if still be interested to hear the official answer
I'm pretty sure you always need to leave behind *something* in a hex with enemy ships due to pinning, even when you use the Command Rating exemption?
Am I misremembering the rules? Doesn't the Command Rating exception mean that you can pull extra ships out of a hex (the difference between CR A and CR B), but you are always required to leave at least 1 unit behind?
(I don't have my rulebook handy right this second to check...)
It's in (203.55) At least one ship must be left in the hex.
Thanks Nick; I was concerned I was losing my mind :-)
On the upside, (203.55) is *super* clear!
Quote:By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 04:19 am: Edit
On Friday, January 31, 2014 - 04:44 pm, the following question was posted:
*In (624.27), the Inter-Stellar Concordium is at a peacetime economy for the duration of the Gathering Winds scenario. According to (431.21) in F&E 2010, an empire can build a mobile base in addition to its scheduled production "if at war". However, in this case, the Y168 ISC OOB in (624.43) has only six pre-constructed MBs available, yet has twelve on-map BATS locations to attempt to place bases into. Should there be an exception made for the ISC allowing them to build MBs while at a peacetime economy, or is there a pre-existing detail which I may have overlooked?
The answer was provided by Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 12:10 pm:
1. The ISC start with extra MBs that allow them to build 1 per turn so they have enough MBs to complete the original border bases at the rate of 1 per turn using the existing rules. The extra at start MBs were purposely added to avoid a special rule about producing more than one MB in a given turn. See (431.21). If the ISC player loses a MB that results in VPs for the Romulan/Gorn player(s), and is accounted for in the Victory Conditions.
My question is, doesn’t the Gathering Winds scenario (624.0) need errata to provide an exception to (431.21) in order to allow the ISC to build the one mobile base per turn (or am I missing something that already allows them to do so)?
Quote:By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 09:19 am: Edit
Jeffrey, the scenario itself provides the exception to (431.21) about building MBs.
Thomas, I cannot see the exception in that scenario that you are referring to. Could you indicate what rule in the scenario covers it? (I am sure once you point it out I will wonder how I could have missed it.) Thanks.
In order to play the Gathering Winds scenario you have to build a number of MBs to complete the outer ring. You may build 1 per turn even though you are running at a 50% economy. The ISC economy has more than enough money to build the MB along with the standard OB construction schedule with money leftover. You have enough MBs at the start plus building one per turn from Turn 1 to Turn 7 to complete the outer ring of Battle Stations provided you do not lose a single one in combat at the end of the scenario.
I realize that they have the funds, and they need to build MBs to complete the outer ring of BATS. However, since the ISC is on a peacetime economy, does not (431.21) prevent building MBs, which has in its rule that MBs can only be produced when at war?
No, the whole scenario is created around building that outer ring. Thus the scenario itself is the exception.