Paul wrote:
>>We was fighting over a BATS - Tholians Detached+Federation Homeless supplied and there was a way if I won, I would have a supply line (via a Tug) to 3111 - which had a very large battered and out of fighters Klingon fleet...>>

Oh, sure--like, there are always potential opportunities for weird corner case situations that result in kooky results, but I suspect that in the grand scheme, as a general rule, the Tholians will likely have trouble burning up too many of their ships, as, well, the Coalition have limited incentive (in a general sense) to aggressively engage.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Wednesday, January 12, 2022 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Unless, for instance, the Coalition co-locates a couple of Starbases right next to Tholian space.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Wednesday, January 12, 2022 - 03:53 pm: Edit

>> the Coalition have limited incentive (in a general sense) to aggressively engage

Isn't that also, to a certain extent, a distortion of motivations based upon rule? Since the Klingon player knows the Tholians are on a very tight scenario leash, they can simply let them do whatever they can by rule, absorb whatever losses are incurred, and then retake anything lost once the Tholians return to the Holdfast after turn 28.

Now if the Klingons didn't know about the leash, or the full extent of Tholian fleet size, they might view the Tholian attack as perhaps more significant than it actually is. Perhaps a prelude to broader military action? Otherwise why would the Tholians emerge from the Holdfast at all? Historically the Klingons did not know for sure that the Tholian action was just a short duration spoiling/harassment attack.

Furthermore, seeing as how the Klingons would still be pretty peeved about the prior genocide on the three former Klingon colonies in what is now ostensibly "Tholian space" I don't think the Klingons would be too keen on just allowing the Tholians expand their territory by destroying/capturing 2517, 2518, and 2519 (with the attendant loss of Klingon life).

--Mike

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, January 12, 2022 - 05:56 pm: Edit

Graham wrote:
>>Unless, for instance, the Coalition co-locates a couple of Starbases right next to Tholian space.>>

Heh. Yeah. Sometimes that happens :-)

But in that instance, the Coalition generally had enough ships on the SBs that the Tholians going on a suicide attack on the SBs would have had no impact. Scads of Tholians would have been vaporized, and they would have not accomplished much.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, January 12, 2022 - 05:58 pm: Edit

Mike wrote:
>>Isn't that also, to a certain extent, a distortion of motivations based upon rule? Since the Klingon player knows the Tholians are on a very tight scenario leash, they can simply let them do whatever they can by rule, absorb whatever losses are incurred, and then retake anything lost once the Tholians return to the Holdfast after turn 28.>>

Well, yes. I'm only talking about rules and game effects here. I'm not really interested in (or compelled by) the "historical aspect" except in how it is reflected in the rules :-)

Like, the rules could be different, and different things would happen, but they aren't, so they don't.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Thursday, January 13, 2022 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Absolutely Peter. The players read and abide by the rules and then play to win. And sometimes that results in (perhaps subjectively) somewhat odd things like inting Tholians or avoidant Klingons. And those are the rules, no question. :-)

--Mike

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, January 14, 2022 - 03:14 pm: Edit

What does the Peanut Gallery think?

"502.9 - The Federation Third Way.

If the optional rule is used and other Empires can select the Third Way rather than using PF's - does 502.91, 502.92 and 502.93 actually occur on the PF1 turn, or does the Empire have to wait until Year 181 for the rules benefits to occur?

(They have to decide on the PF1 turn, but are the rules immediate or deferred to 181 (or in theory later for for Roms and Gorns))"


Posted from Q&A...

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, January 14, 2022 - 07:55 pm: Edit

Probably happens the same way it happens for the Feds.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, January 15, 2022 - 03:30 pm: Edit

William wrote:
>>How does one determine whether or not a squadron is eligible to be the "fourth" squadron? For example, I have had battle lines with a CVBG with 2.5 squadrons, i.e. CVA+CVL+Escorts. In such a case, can an additional squadron be considered the "fourth" squadron?>>

Why would it not be able to be considered the "fourth" squadron?

Using 3rd Way, the Feds can have 4 squadrons of fighters in a given battle force (as opposed to the 3 for everyone else).

A "squadron" is a unit of fighters that is generally 1-6 fighters (for regular fighters), but can be as large as 10 (A10s), or sometimes weirdly larger (like the oversized ones from CVDs or the IC), but those can't be used as independent squadrons.

If you have a CVBG with CVA+CVL, that's 3 squadrons (of which the 3rd squadron is only half a squadron, as the CVL only has 3 fighters). You can add an independent 4th squadron (from a support carrier or something), as 3rd Way lets you do that. That 4th squadron can be 6 fighters (F18s) or 10 fighters (A10s) or whatever.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, January 15, 2022 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Well, squadrons are normally counted but are not normally numbered "first", "second", "third", or "fourth". This rule appears to introduce a new concept of numbering one's squadrons. The question then becomes how that can be done. Does a half-squadron get a number? What if the line has three half-squadrons but no full ones?

For what it's worth, if I were writing the rule, I would just say that one independent squadron may be designated to not count against command limits. This would avoid any such confusion. But I'm not writing the rule.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, January 15, 2022 - 03:52 pm: Edit

I'm not really seeing what you are parsing here.

I don't know that what number a squadron is matters.

That you can have a "fourth" squadron just means you can have more than three in your line, over and above the standard three squadron limit.

A half squadron only counts as a squadron if you already have 2 squadrons (i.e. if you have 6+6+3 standard fighters, that is three squadrons of fighters, even though one is only half a squadron), or it is independent (as an independent squadron is between 1-6 regular fighters). If you have 3 "half squadrons", you don't have 3 half squadrons. You have 1 and a half squadrons.

If you have, say, Fed CVLs on the line? You have 1.5 squadrons of fighters on the line, and can have another independent squadron (of 6 fighters) on the line from somewhere. Or two independent squadrons on the line if 3rd Way is in play (and the extra one doesn't count against command limits).

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Saturday, January 15, 2022 - 05:57 pm: Edit

(502.93) FIGHTER LIMIT: As an aspect of the new command technology, the Federation is able (starting in Y181) to deploy four fighter squadrons in a Battle Force rather than the usual three. (If any PFs or fighters from allied empires are included, this ability is lost.) If the fourth squadron is an “independent” squadron sent to the Battle Force by a carrier or base which is not in the Battle Force, it does not count against the command limits. See (518.46)‡ for an exception.

If the fourth squadron in the battle force is an “independent” squadron sent to the Battle Force by a carrier or base which is not in the Battle Force, it does not count against the command limits.

If at least one of these four fighter squadrons is an “independent” squadron (501.4) (302.35), then one of those "independent" squadrons does not count against the command limits.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, January 15, 2022 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Again, I don't really see what the issue is here.

The Feds, when using 3rd Way, can have 4 squadrons of fighters in a given battle force. As opposed to 3 for everyone else.

If the extra squadron is an independent one, it doesn't count against command limits. Just like if the extra squadron was *not* an independent one.

If the Feds have a line of:

DNG+ADM (c/f), [CVA, CVS, 3DE, FFE], [CVS, DE, FFE], 3NCL, (SC)=113/4

This is a legal line, with 4 squadrons of fighters (I'm assuming the CVBG counts as one less ship, as I think it does, but I didn't go check). And the 4th squadron doesn't count against the command limits (just like the first 3).

They can also have a line of:

DNG+ADM (c/f), [CVA, CVS, 3DE, FFE], [3NCL, 3DW], NCL, 6IFF, (SC)=123/4

Where the 6IFF is sent forward by a support carrier, and doesn't count towards command limits. So, again, 4 total squadrons that don't count against command limits.

None of this has anything to do with "numbering" squadrons. "the fourth squadron" doesn't mean "the squadron you designate as #4". It just means "the extra squadron, over and above the regular 3 squadrons".

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, January 15, 2022 - 06:16 pm: Edit

Both of you appear to be saying that the requirement is that the battle force be one that, in the absence of the Third Way, would be illegal because of too many fighters. It's not an unreasonable interpretation. It's just that the way the rule is written strikes me as imprecise. And that means it's worth asking for clarification.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, January 15, 2022 - 06:20 pm: Edit

What is an alternative version that you are suggesting?

Like, again, I'm have a great deal of difficulty understanding what the point of confusion or imprecision is.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Sunday, January 16, 2022 - 01:00 am: Edit

Yeah I don't see where the ambiguity lies, unless the normal 3 squadron limit isn't explained anywhere already. I say this because the rule says that a Federation battle force can have 4 squadrons instead of the usual 3, which seems pretty clear that means you just "use the normal rules" for determining squadron count to make sure you aren't over 3, except you replace 3 with 4. Is there confusion because the "normal" 3 squadron limit isn't explained anywhere?

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, January 16, 2022 - 02:48 am: Edit

Here is an example. Imagine the Federation using 3rd way, and they assemble a Battle Force:

Flagship: CA (CR8)

3xIFF
3xNCL
1xFV
1xFFE

There are 4 squadrons in this BF. Which one is the 4th squadron? How does one determine that?

--Mike

By Philippe Le Bas (Phil76) on Sunday, January 16, 2022 - 06:51 am: Edit

I am not a native english speaker, but the rule is clear for me. Like Peter Bajika said, if you have 4 squadrons, and if one of them is an independant squadron, it does not count against command limit.

Without 3rd way : 3 squadrons allowed = 3 CR needed
With 3rd way : 4 squadrons allowed = 4 CR needed, if one of them is independant,only 3 CR needed.

The more we advance, the more F&E rules are cluttered because we always "cut hairs in half", or we add a rule for a situation which happens only rarely.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, January 16, 2022 - 08:32 am: Edit

Mike wrote:
>>Flagship: CA (CR8)

3xIFF
3xNCL
1xFV
1xFFE

There are 4 squadrons in this BF. Which one is the 4th squadron? How does one determine that?>>

The "4th squadron" is the one that is in the battle line that is over an above the 3 you can usually use. How do you determine that? You, the Fed who is making the battle line, says "this here is my extra squadron".

Like, it seems here that there is a *lot* of effort being put into trying to make the phrase "4th squadron" something that it doesn't mean. It isn't a special designation. It is just "the Feds can have 4 total squadrons in a battle line, and can do so over and above command limits".

The above line you propose:

CA (c/f), [FV, FFE], 3NCL, 6IFF, 6IFF, 6IFF

Has 4 squadrons of fighters (which the Feds are allowed to do via 3rd way). The 4th one, if independent, doesn't count against command rating (the first 3 either don't count against command rating as they are on carriers, or do if they are independent), so this force could even have an extra ship in it. So it could be:

CA (c/f), [FV, FFE], 4NCL, 6IFF, 6IFF, 6IFF

A legal, 3rd Way Fed line could have 4 squadrons of fighters on carriers (none of which count against command rating), or 4 squadrons of independent fighters (3 of which count against command ratings and the last one does not), or 3 squadrons of fighters on carriers and a 4th independent squadron (none of which count against command rating), or 2 squadrons on carriers and 2 squadrons of independent fighters (one of which counts against command rating and the other of which does not). Or something like that.

Which squadron is the "4th squadron"? The one that needs to not count against command rating. Unless none of them count against the command rating ('cause they are all on carriers).

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, January 16, 2022 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Regarding the "4th squadron," I'm seeing a distinction without a difference. Does it matter which one you count as the 4th? Am I missing something?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, January 16, 2022 - 03:26 pm: Edit

I think what William is getting at, is there is a rule quoting Forth (and Fifth) Squadrons - but zero explanation of what that is.

In 2010 rules, it does not matter - but if playing with SWAC's it does - as the fifth squadron can only be standard fighters (IIRC).

So the Federation player might need to say, the forth IFF Squadron is the CVB fighters and the SWAC is adding 3/6 fighters from the CVS.

So basically, I think William is just wanting confirmation 'the Federation player designates the 4th and 5th squadrons, as appropriate'?

(But an opponent could say "your not allowed to do that..." - as obvious to you and me (I think the intended rule is the Fed player just allocates the 4th squadron as they see fit, as others have said), there is always room for someone to disagree when the rule isn't defined).

(There may be rules which would require you to designate 1st, 2nd and 3rd Squadrons in the future, so expanding it to cover 1st to 5th might be useful).

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, January 16, 2022 - 03:40 pm: Edit

It does not.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, January 16, 2022 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Yeah, I'm not feeling it. On the off chance it matters, the Feds get to decide which squad is the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. - so, again, what is the scenario in which it matters? If you're worried about future rules, let future rules take care of themselves!

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, January 16, 2022 - 04:33 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

(502.93) FIGHTER LIMIT: As an aspect of the new command technology, the Federation is able (starting in Y181) to deploy four fighter squadrons in a Battle Force rather than the usual three. (If any PFs or fighters from allied empires are included, this ability is lost.) If the fourth squadron is an “independent” squadron sent to the Battle Force by a carrier or base which is not in the Battle Force, it does not count against the command limits. See (518.46)‡ for an exception.

---

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, January 16, 2022 - 05:46 pm: Edit

The first 3 squadrons can come from anywhere like normal (carriers or independent squadrons). Nothing in that rule suggests otherwise.

If the Feds have a 4th squadron in their 3rd Way force, it can be on a carrier (and it doesn't count against command limits, as fighters on carriers on the line don't count against command limits), or it can be an independent squadron (and it doesn't count against command limits because of 502.93).

If the Feds have 3 independent squadrons on the line for whatever reason, those 3 count against command limits like normal. But if they they add a 4th independent squadron on top of that, it does not. 'Cause (502.93).

Paul wrote:
>>So basically, I think William is just wanting confirmation 'the Federation player designates the 4th and 5th squadrons, as appropriate'?>>

Why would it not? In all cases, the person making their battle line determines how their battle line works. In any situation where there is some sort of ambiguity about how a line can be set up, the rules indicate that the person making the line can just make it work as appropriate.

The Feds could, using 3rd Way rules and a SWAC, have a line of:

DNG+ADM (c/f), [CVA, CVS, 3DE, FFE], [3NCL, 3DW], 8IFF (from CVB, independent squadron, 3rd Way), does not count against CR), SWAC, 3IFF (independent, from SWAC, does count against CR), (SC)

There is nothing that needs figuring out here that isn't clear in the rules.