Archive through November 03, 2021
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through November 03, 2021
Romulans cannot build ships other than their PWC, so I think that meants no APTs that are active.
To add to what Richard said - (rules are not with me but I did quickly this morning) - I don't know if a race not a Full or Limited War can build APT's.
PWC is just that.
One other aspect though is that if APT's can be bought pre 'war' - whats to stop an Empire using them to send Ep's (generated from Dip Teams) - instead of K-Parts?
Example
Turn 2 - Feds and Gorns build 3 APT's each.
Turn 3 - Hydrans don't attack - and Feds and Gorns sent 3 Ep's each on the APTs.
Turns 4 to 6 - They send them to the Kzinti.
Extra Ep's early is probably not good for the game?
Ultimately though - allowing the Romulans to increase their pre-war supply of K-Parts basically nullifies what is a fairly cool rule.
I don't think you can send EPs to an empire your are not allied with unless there's a balance option or special rule allowing it (ie Kzinti lend lease).
Good point.... and probably the Romulans are not Allied to the Klingons/Lyrans on turn 1 to 9* either, so sending additional K-Parts logically would be the same.
* - And possibly longer if the Rom's don't attack.
By the way, those APTs are one reason that those DIPs got to their destination to generate those EPs to start with (and will probably stay with them if transport is needed) ...
Yes, unreleased APTs are allowed to move DIPS around.
Richard, got a rule number for that? (Always post a rule number when making such a declarative statement.)
(600.35) DIPLOMATS: Diplomatic teams‡ (including Klingon diplmatic cruisers‡) and small transports carrying diplomatic teams are always released and can go about their business (540.0).
Many thanks to Chuck for a quick ruling on the EWN question!
Quote:By fabio poli (Fabioz) on Friday, October 15, 2021 - 01:47 pm: Edit
If the klingon choose to build another survey cruiser on turn 1, can send it to the Lyran off-map on the same turn like the two allowed by the OOB?
I would say yes, but i think it should be addressed by ADB.
Yes, but it will cost the Lyrans a strategic movement point as the third survey ship is not covered by the special strategic movement rules regarding the Klingon survey ships.
NOTE: I cannot find the rule # for Klingon Survey ships at this time.
Turtle, (542.22)??
"
By fabio poli (Fabioz) on Friday, October 15, 2021 - 01:47 pm: Edit
If the klingon choose to build another survey cruiser on turn 1, can send it to the Lyran off-map on the same turn like the two allowed by the OOB?
I would say yes, but i think it should be addressed by ADB.
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, October 15, 2021 - 09:14 pm: Edit
Fabio
Yes, but it will cost the Lyrans a strategic movement point as the third survey ship is not covered by the special strategic movement rules regarding the Klingon survey ships.
See (542.22).
"
Just to play devils advocate - there is no enabling rule which permits Klingon Turn 1 construction to move outside of Klingon space - so it could be built on turn 1, but would need to wait until turn 2 to leave Klingon space.
542.22 is an enabling rule which explains how the 2 existing Klingon survey ships do exit Klingon space on turn 1 - and how new ships may enter Lyran Far Stars space - but that doesn't replace the Turn 1 Klingon special war rules.
i.e. IMHO, 542.22 does not permit new ships to enter Lyran space on turn 1.
(601.1611) '... cannot leave their (Klingon) territory ...'
The point is that the Klingons cannot enter Lyran space normally in order to preserve the secret of their alliance.
The Klingons are normally allowed to send two survey ships into Lyran space on turn one.
While the letter of the rule does not provide for a 3rd to be allowed, one should remember the rule was originally written before you could build additional survey ships.
It seems reasonable that the Klingons could send additional survey ships (if existing) without alerting the Kzinti to the secret alliance and might justify a rules clarification saying so.
Richard
I agree 
It seems a reasonable change - although perhaps it would be a risky thing to do ('in the real world')?
i.e. the two existing ships could move through Klingon and Lyran space by any route to Far Stars.... but its likely Kzinti spies would be watching the Klingon Shipyards and so a new Survey Cruiser would perhaps be noticed going from the Shipyard to Lyran Space?
So why not something like roll a dice and if you roll a 6 - a diplomatic incident is caused and say a 3 Ep penalty is paid (apologies and bribes...) AND the ship remains in Klingon space?
Wouldn't want it too serious (as it could have much bigger effects) but would perhaps be a nice addition?
Appears you are all in agreement. In that adding a 3rd Survey ship seems to be currently not directly allowed and would take a change or at least a clarification. This opens the door to either house rules playtest and/or proposals in the form of either a balance factor or a colorful extra set of steps to pull off as Paul proposes.
The rules say may build one Survey ship per year so if the Klingons aren't coming into the Fall 168 turn as having been assumed to have built the D7E in the Spring there should be no issue construction-wise preventing the creation of the ship and the associated paid new supply line cost. When was the listed D7E built/converted historically?
Movement into the Allied space is what is being discussed here specific to the scenario. As such, now seems to be the time to get that in with 2022 presenting the opportunity for basic set revision which could include either a new balance factor or scenario level rule addition.
Personally I like it as a balance factor option rather than a regular rule. As the Klingon would then build another (their 4th) on T2 Y169S and a 5th on T4 (Maximizing OM Survey from that point). This is normally achieved on T6 (by a dedicated "invest in the future" Klingon) so having the extra ship from T1 (w/ bonus T2> rolls) adds 5 extra Survey rolls to T6 leading to (average rolls assumed) an extra province discovery (+1 bonus for the length of the game) generating about 50+ EPs for the cost of the Ship + Supply line.
It is assumed in all cases the Klingon also sends a PT from T1 for the die roll bonus...because that is just good business.
Note: This assumes the ship is NOT used for High Risk Survey which can have a much bigger benefit with lucky rolls or costs should the ship suffer damage and need repairs.
I don't think the Klingons and Lyrans are trying to keep their *alliance* a secret. It is fairly obvious the Klingons and Lyrans are allies based upon the prior war and technology sharing.
What is a secret is the current plan to attack the Kzinti and the exact timing and sequencing of the attack. That's why the Klingons cannot move ships into Lyran space on Turn 1.
I don't think that manufacturing an additional survey ship and sending that ship to the exact same Klingon survey area would tip the Coalition hand and be indicative of imminent military action. It's just the Klingons further expanding their survey capacity (within the limits of other applicable rules), which results in more long term economic growth, not a near term military threat.
--Mike
"I have a report here showing that the Klingons have expanded their capacity for peaceful exploration, combined with an increasing trust in peaceful coexistence with their Lyran neighbors. Such an expansion of their survey capacity will bring about an increase in their economic capacity to the whole of the Klingon Realm, and with that prosperity one can expect a wholesale betterment of the living conditions for the entire Klingon populace."
"So does that mean what I think it means?"
"Yep, they're going to invade us any day now."
*~*
Yeah, I think they could expand their survey without tipping off their impending war plans. If anything, it would look like they are looking for a peaceful economic expansion, instead of the usual territorial conquest.
Mike and Kevin
Fair counter point - but the rules as they stand don't allow any Turn 1 construction to leave Klingon space.
As Lawrence pointed out - there is a modest gain for starting extra Klingon exploration early and so a minor possible Alliance benefit would seem to be a good counter to it.
I don't know that it would be a problem to (change the rules to) allow the Klingons to send a third, fourth, and fifth survey ship or that the Alliance needs any compensation. The cost of a lost cruiser and the construction cost of the survey ship is cost enough.
I see some discussion in the January 13 2020 archive about transferring fighters during movement. Was a resolution reached on that?
My own opinion is that transfers should be allowed before movement and possibly after movement, but not during movement. From a gameplay standpoint, transferring during movement feels too hacky. From a world standpoint, just make some excuse about it being bureaucratically too difficult to arrange exchanges during movement.
Alternatively, one might allow transfers during movement provided one of the two carriers does not move. That is surely not difficult to arrange. But an rendezvous on the fly seems a lot harder.
But if there is a consensus, I would be interested to know what it is.
I don't remember such a discussion but do not suport the idea.
I agree with not allowing it during movement. It's just a layer of complexity we don't need.
I think it should be allowed before or after movement. The problem is that without that, one has to track how many fighters are on which carrier, not just how many are in the hex. Effectively, not having transfer before/after movement is also a layer of complexity we don't need.
I don’t know that the rules allow or need to allow transfer during movement at all. Just during combat.
Mmm - just thought of this one - may or may not need a formal question, but have never noticed it before.
Example.
SSC combat is done.
Attacker does 1 casualty and defender does 0 back.
Defender takes it as a Cripple of one of their ships.
Defender then retreats and Attacker pursues - and catches the defender.
Both sides then do 1 casualty each.
Can either play take it as a Retreat option?
(I don't think so - as the Defender has already retreated and so it would be no penalty - and the attacker has pursued and so can't retreat).
310.32 I think covers off the Defender "one (and only one casualty may be resolved as a retreat) - and I don't think 310.321 would be considered a special rule to overrule the general rule of retreat or pursuit - but 310.32 doesn't state a SSC Pursuit battle excludes a retreat casualty being taken