I believe Turtle is incorrect; there is nothing in there saying the three fighter squadrons cannot be IFF.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, January 17, 2022 - 02:22 am: Edit

Peter

"Why would it not?"

For once, I don't know, but William wasn't happy with the rule as written and we played it as the Fed player can choose (as I think that is the correct way and he was 50/50) - and he just wanted to check

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, January 17, 2022 - 07:56 am: Edit

Heh, sure. But I honestly have no idea what the alternative even *is* to what I'm indicating. What is the alternative to "the Fed player can choose which squadron is the 4th squadron"? Is the alternative the opponent choses and can decide your battle line is illegal?

And why would it not be "the Fed player can choose which squadron is the 4th squadron", when all other rules about putting together your battle line are up to you?

This seems very much like looking at the rules for Battle Groups and thinking "Who decides what ships are in the Battle Group? If these 3CW *aren't* in the Battle Group, this line has too many ships in it and is illegal!" The person making the battle line decide what ships are in the Battle Group.

Just like how the Fed player decides which fighters are "the 4th squadron". It's the squadron of fighters that is extra and doesn't count against command rating.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Monday, January 17, 2022 - 10:15 am: Edit

The basic point of my question was that "4th squadron" might actually be "3.5th" squadron or similar. Sounds like y'all are saying that to have a "4th" squadron, anything above 2 squadrons in the rest off the line is enough. That works for me.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, January 17, 2022 - 12:03 pm: Edit

The "4th squadron" is any number of fighters between 1 and 10 that are over and above the regular limit of 3 squadrons.

A Fed line with 3CVS groups (3 squadrons of 6 fighters each) that then has an independent "4th squadron" that is 1 fighter ('cause that is all that is left to use, I guess?) is legally using the 3rd Way rules.

An independent squadron is a discrete unit (i.e. an independent squadron is 1-10 fighters, where anything more than 6 fighters is a special fighter type, like F-15's or Heavy fighters) (302.351). Partial squadrons on ships "combine" into full squadrons, for purposes of how many squadrons can be in a line, i.e. a Fed could have a battle hex with 7FVs and make a line that is:

DNG+ADM (cm), [FV, FV, FFE, FFE], [FV, FFE], [FV, FFE] [FV, FFE], [FV, FFE], 3IFF, (SC)

Which is legal (and deeply silly :-) under 3rd Way rules (a CVBV group that counts as 1 less ship with 2FV, 18 fighters (3 squadrons) of regular fighters, and then a 4th squadron of 3 fighters that doesn't count against the command rating (and the CVBG counts as one ship less).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, January 17, 2022 - 12:07 pm: Edit

One could certainly have, say, 15 fighters on carriers on the line (2CVS, FFV), and then have an independent squadron of 3IFF that counts as a ship for command, be up to 18 fighters (3 squadrons), then add a 4th squadron of 6IFF that doesn't count against command ratings. Or presumably, not add the 3IFF, and still have the 4th 6IFF squadron not count against the command rating.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, January 17, 2022 - 12:14 pm: Edit

Well, surely the silliest CVBG would be CVL+CVL...

closely followed by CVL+CVL+NAC?

i.e. Light Carrier (1 Escort) and a Single Ship Carrier

Example 1 counts as 1 ship slot.... and example 2 counts as 2 ship slots?

But yes, a legal line can be formed with 8 FV's (as 2 FV's could send their fighters forward to make the 4th Squadron)!!

But only if your not playing with FO. As the IFF then counts towards command (and so a Command Point is needed to offset it).

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 28, 2022 - 05:08 pm: Edit

On my mauler/attrition unit question I checked the Q&A on the BBS but could find no ruling. I searched other rules, but couldn't find anything.

Please chime in if the question has been asked and answered, or if I missed the rule somewhere. Thanks!

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, January 28, 2022 - 06:11 pm: Edit

I know nothing of whether or not the question has been asked and answered before, but...

I do know this was considered a standard tactic years ago, when assaulting the Tholian capital. You can't take down their PDU defenses with a mauler, but they only have so many fighters (and they are mostly all in the battle at once), so maul 10 of them per round to reduce their firepower.

I think it was Joe Stevenson who was the one saying that. He could have been wrong, but he rarely is wrong on the rules.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Friday, January 28, 2022 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Doesn't 302.451 on F&E2010 page 35 answer the question in the affirmative?

Note that this rule appears to be misnumbered and should probably be 302.541 so it follows 302.54 above it?

--Mike

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, January 28, 2022 - 06:42 pm: Edit

No, 302.541 is againast every attrition unit in the battleforce and is not limited to just the mauler (unless that's all the damage done).

The alternative (302.542) is to target either the fighters or PFs off one unit for directed damage and again not limited to just the mauler.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Friday, January 28, 2022 - 09:13 pm: Edit

<deleted>
I posted it in the wrong place

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, January 30, 2022 - 12:37 pm: Edit

William wrote:
>>Feds have a squadron of better fighters at an SB, per (502.95). Then the third way comes along in earnest and "doubles" its fighter complement (502.91). The question is whether the (502.95) squadron now becomes two such squadrons, or whether a normal squadron is added. In other words, is the ending fighter factor of the SB 26 or 28?>>

All (502.91) says is "The Federation doubles the fighter complement on it's bases and PDUs..."; it does not say "add regular squadrons". And (502.95) doesn't make any exceptions for these fighters.

There is no reason at all to think that "doubles the fighter complement" does not apply to the special F14/F15 squadrons as well. So if a base or planet has F14/F15 squadrons, it would presumably double those as normal (so a SB with a squadron of F14's would have 4 squadrons of fighters: 6, 6, 8, 8, for 28 total fighters).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, January 30, 2022 - 01:45 pm: Edit

(I mean, it's possible I'm missing something somewhere, and could be wrong, but up front, the rule seems pretty simple).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, January 30, 2022 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Peter - my comment would be that 502.95 doesn't double the number of special F14/F15 fighters.

So you SB's with 12 or 14 - you double to 24 and then add +2 if it has F14's.

i.e. You still only have 3 F14 squadrons (3 x +2 counters), so the normal rule applies (double) and then specific rule applies (+2) - you don't get 6 F14 Squadrons, which would be required to get to 28 fighter factors.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, January 30, 2022 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Maybe? But unless there is something that supports this in the rules I missed (which there certainly might be), (502.91) just says "doubles the fighter compliment".

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Sunday, January 30, 2022 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Actually there is, (502.951) limits any SB to one F14 squadron, this is reinforced with last sentence - 'This gives these SBs with two extra fighter factors.'

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, January 30, 2022 - 06:40 pm: Edit

Fair enough. I retract my initial suggestion.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, January 30, 2022 - 07:50 pm: Edit

OK, sounds like a generally majority opinion. I'm a bit confused about Frazikar and Turtle. Do the two of you have some official status? Not contesting the rule at this point; just wondering for my general info.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, January 30, 2022 - 09:00 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

(502.953) If the PDU or starbase is destroyed, the special fighter squadron may be designated at the start of the next Federation turn as being at another planet (F-15s) or starbase (F-14s). There is no other way to move the squadrons to another location and there is no provision to increase the number of squadrons.

---

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, January 30, 2022 - 09:35 pm: Edit

Agreed. I missed that. Thanks for clarifying. Still curious about your status.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, January 31, 2022 - 07:56 am: Edit

"Another 3rd way question. About CVBGs, the rule says:

(502.921) These included two carriers, each with the normal number of escorts. (This could include single-ship carriers with newly-assigned escorts. All ships in a CVBG must be Federation.)

What about a single-ship carrier without any escorts? Two examples:

CVA+CVL+2NAC+FFE, or
CVS+TGV (i.e, carrier tug)+DE+FFE

One might argue that zero is a normal number of escorts for either a CVL or a carrier tug. But I'm not sure whether or not that's the intention of the rule. In the carrier tug case, there would then be the further question of how many slots the CVS+carrier tug+DE+FFE group takes up."

My 2 cent worth

The CVA/CVL CVBG would take 4 'command slots' (5 less the 1 reduction) - as there is no penalty to include a 'normal' Single Ship Carrier in it.

You could include an extra light escort - on the 'CVA', which if lost wouldn't take up a ghost slot - but if you added escorts for the CVL, would create Ghost slots if escorts are killed - over and above 'extra' escorts.

i.e. a CVA+CVL+4 Light Escorts could ignore the first Escort being lost - but a CVA+CVL+5 or 6 Light Escorts would always count as a 5 CVBG ship group minimum (as the CVL was escorted - CVA & 3 min escorts and CVL & 1 min escort = 6, less the 1 CVBG discount).

Note - Heavy Escorts can clearly be included - but if the only light escort is destroyed - a ghost slot penalty does apply (outside of 2 CVL's/CVE's being in the group with a single heavy escort each!)

On the CVS with a Carrier Tug, that would take up a net 4 command slots (4 ships -1 for CVBG +1 for Carrier Tug Penalty.)

A normal** CV Carrier Tug + CVL + 2 escorts(min 1 light) could count though as 3 slots, as the CV Tug is normally escorted and the CVL can have no escorts. (4 ships -1 for CVBG).

** - Noting the Feds can have the CVA Carrier Tug (which would add 1 ship to the required group).

Might be wrong - but all normal rules seem to be being followed?

CVBG's - just rock

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Monday, January 31, 2022 - 09:06 am: Edit

That's how I've been doing it. I think we can continue doing it that way unless/until we get an answer otherwise. Which I have no idea if we will or not.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Monday, January 31, 2022 - 10:07 am: Edit

That sounds right to me. The key rule for carrier tugs (which is easily overlooked) is:

(515.261) Unescorted carrier tugs count as two ships for command rating purposes.

--Mike

By Timothy Linden (Timlinden) on Friday, February 11, 2022 - 12:46 pm: Edit

Q302.54 (directing damage against fighters and PFs) in view of 308.4 (mauler effects)

As I recall, every other case where you may use direct damage on multiple units (groups, PDU, in pursuit vs cripples I believe too?) the mauler gets to use its full value against all said multiple units, not just one of them. Why would it not be able to against fighters/PF's? What rule/criteria is being used to support that the mauler cannot?

It is not like maulers are a slow firing one big shot weapon. Most such ships have two mauler cannon, and can in any case fire a mauler cannon multiple times over very short timeframes relatively. Let alone any other weapons on the mauler.

Tim.