Stewart - replying here to avoid cluttering Q&A..

Sorry, not sure if your replying to my question, but either I have asked the question poorly - or you have lost me/are answering a different question?

I know what a Partial Grid is - but the question covers what supply support (over and above Base Supply) an Allied Force can receive in a Partial Grid.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Tuesday, April 20, 2021 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Ah, you're talking about an out-of-supply Allied Force in another's Partial Gird (Kzinti in Gorn space type deal or isolated Fed force after all in range Fed bases are destroyed and planets captured) ...

In that case, depends on the supply priorities, the Allied Force could be covered by Homeless or Expeditionary status ...

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Thursday, April 29, 2021 - 09:20 pm: Edit

Quick one:

If the Klingons capture a Kzinti province, and thereafter pass off garrison duty to a pair of Lyran FF's, whose captured province is it?

If the Klingons capture a Kzinti planet, and thereafter pass off garrison duty to a Lyran BATS established atop it, whose captured planet is it?

Does the passing-off affect LTC?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, April 29, 2021 - 09:44 pm: Edit

I dunno the LTC thing, but a garrisoned planet or province belongs to the empire providing the garrison.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Friday, April 30, 2021 - 02:43 am: Edit

Thank you.

By Karl Mangold (Solomon) on Friday, April 30, 2021 - 08:52 am: Edit

The LTC question might be worth a Q&A, since it does happen periodically.
My guess is that it would reset the LTC clock, since you can't just be switching alien overlords willy-nilly without consequences. But that's just my thought.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, April 30, 2021 - 10:08 am: Edit

No, LTC is not reset. The issue was discussed by the staff during the FO2016 rulebook upgrade for Gale Force. As long as the Coalition doesn't give up control of the hex/province/planet in question the LTC and Annexation clocks are not reset.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, April 30, 2021 - 10:08 am: Edit

Deleted by author, duplicate post.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Monday, May 03, 2021 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Two questions related to 421.3 (moving an FRD via strategic movement).

1) Since it's strategic movement, I assume the (up to) twelve hexes must begin and end in an SMN, correct?

2) 421.21 allows the tug to start in a different hex than the FRD and/or continue moving after dropping off an FRD via operational movement. Is the same true for 421.3? In other words, can a tug start in SMN "A", pick up the FRD in SMN "B", drop it off at SMN "C", and then continue on to SMN "D"?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, May 03, 2021 - 05:37 pm: Edit

John answer to your questions as I believe them to be:

1. Yes, all Strategic Movement must begin and end on a Strategic Movement Node. See (204.21). Exception for X Ships under (523.26) and the subsequent sub rules.

2. I'm not sure. I think it must remain with the FRD. I believe if it moves the maximum of 12 hexes it must remain with the FRD. Anything less than 12 is a question for FEAR and FEDS.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, May 03, 2021 - 05:50 pm: Edit

John,

Your answer is addressed in (204.24). A tug could pick up an FRD at an SMN during Strategic
Movement (421.3), but would thereafter be limited to twelve hexes of Strategic Movement (whether or not it dropped off the FRD).

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Monday, May 03, 2021 - 08:03 pm: Edit

Thank you for the confirmation and answer.

As long as I'm asking questions today, I have wondered: do the combat factors on a repair ship counter serve any purpose? Since 422.4 clearly states that they cannot participate in combat, it would appear that the answer is "no," but then why were they added? Since 422.4 says "within the current rules," are they a holdover from a rule that no longer exists?

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, May 03, 2021 - 11:25 pm: Edit

As far as I understand, they are a holdover of a rule that was *going* to exist, but never did.

They made the counter with a rule in mind, rewrote the rule, and never bothered to change the counter as the change wasn't needed.

But I could be misinformed.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, May 04, 2021 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Ahmad if you build the SR on turn X and send it off map on turn X it does not count as a tug build.

If you bring a SR from the off map on turn A that was not built on turn A then it does count as a tug build. However, if that same tug brought in on turn A goes back to the off map area on turn B then returns to the on map area on turn C it does not count against the tug limit as it was already counted against the tug limit.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Tuesday, May 04, 2021 - 08:03 pm: Edit

Since the Lyran SR is also a tug, if it stays on-map, it counts as the once-a-year tug build, if it's sent off-map (to play SR), it doesn't count as a tug build (it's tug status is held). When it returns no-map, it's tug status is then used against a tug's once-a-year build.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Sunday, May 09, 2021 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Hello again,

Still trying to figure out the nuances of the game:

1) I've been reading the discussions on 508.122 and think I have it figured out, but want to be sure. Killing a PDU with directed damage is ten points (five if a mauler is used), and four can be targeted at one time. However, since only a single mauler can be used at a time, targeting the maximum number of PDUs has to be a hybrid, correct? E.g., a ten-point mauler could attack two of them, but then the other two would require ten points each so a total of 30 points of damage would be necessary to kill all four in a single strike. Similarly, if the mauler is an SPF, then five points from the SPF can kill one PDU, the second PDU requires eight points (the remaining two from the SPF plus six at the normal 2:1 for directed damage), and then the last two require ten each for a total of 33 points. Correct?

2) I also want to be sure I understand the interaction of 511.35 and 433.12. 511.35 requires the capture of the entire capital hex to destroy a shipyard, and 433.12 requires a starbase in the capital hex for major conversions. So for those races that only have a single starbase in their capital, if they lose that starbase during an assault but save the capital, they would still be eligible for new construction, but would lose the ability to make major conversions (at least until a replacement starbase could be built). Correct?

3) In a capital assault, the defender has a static force and a mobile force. As the carriers in the mobile force lose fighters, can fighters from the static force be transferred to the carriers in the mobile force? E.g., suppose the mobile force has a capacity of 30 fighters across its carriers, but currently only has 10 remaining. The next round, it is placed in a system that has 20 fighters on the static carriers. At the end of that round of combat, can all 30 fighters land on the mobile carriers?

Thanks in advance.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, May 09, 2021 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Jay,

Correct to both questions.

On item two don't forget you can sub ships in the production schedule (within limits) which would not need a Major Conversion slot.

Ryan

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Sunday, May 09, 2021 - 03:30 pm: Edit

Thanks Ryan.

I added a third question while you were responding to 1 and 2.

Following up on your point about substitutions, you mean that while I couldn't convert a D6 to a D6M, I could still substitute a D6M for a D6 as new production, correct?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, May 09, 2021 - 03:44 pm: Edit

John

Yes - Fighters are free to move from one carrier to another of the same empires* bases - and may have to if their original base was destroyed.

* - Klingon and Lyran fighters can 'cross deck' to replenish the others losses.

But Fed Fighters for example can't go to a Kzinti PDU base.

On question 4 (substitution) - correct, if the Kzinti SB in 1401 is destroyed - the Kzinti can still sub a BC for a CV - but can't convert a BC to a CV (or in effect any Conversions in 1401).

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, May 09, 2021 - 04:16 pm: Edit

John,

Yes, but check the 7XX listings since some substitutions are limited to one per year.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Sunday, May 09, 2021 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Following up on the question on fighters:

Again suppose that the carriers in the mobile force have lost fighters. When the defender assigns the mobile force to system(s) in step six, can he assign empty carrier(s) to a system that is not being attacked in order pick up fighters from the carriers in the static force in that system so that the mobile carriers can use them in future combat rounds?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, May 09, 2021 - 04:43 pm: Edit

John

Yes - although at the end of each 'assault' - i.e. step 8 (511.58), fighters can get redeployed.

If the Defender wants to keep the mobile force full - Static Carriers sometimes end up fighterless - although most of the time, PDU's are dying all the time and so the carriers get a steady flow of replacements - so I wouldn't worry too much!

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Sunday, May 09, 2021 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Thanks for all the assistance. Teaching myself F&E has been my quarantine project for the last year or so, and it seems like every time I figure out a piece of the game, it just triggers a whole new set of questions. The BBS has been a big help, both for researching and asking questions when needed.

I'm sure I'll be back!

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, May 15, 2021 - 08:48 am: Edit

In Q+A, Mike asked:
>>The Klingon master SIT (revised 5/5/20) may be incorrect in that it indicates that BP and VP pods are in CO when they are in base F&E.>>

While BP and VP pods *exist* in the base F+E game, they are abstract and not physical counters (i.e. you need to make note of what tugs have what pods on them, and there are no provisions for mixing and matching from pairs of pods).

Individual pod counters were introduced in CO as physical counters (well, originally Tac Ops, which was rebundled into Combined Ops). The SIT is indicating that the pod counters come from CO (which they do).

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, May 15, 2021 - 10:06 am: Edit

Peter the Tac Ops you refer to was originally called Special Ops.