Understood, Chuck.

Stewart, I'm continuing this in discussions.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, February 18, 2022 - 12:13 pm: Edit

Thanks, Chuck. I just saw the ruling.

By Bill Phillips (Praetor) on Sunday, February 20, 2022 - 12:14 pm: Edit

In reference to:

(503.611) The Lyrans could occupy and claim neutral zone hexes bordering the Klingons on Turn #1. While the Klingons are technically an armed future belligerent, in point of fact the Klingons and Lyrans are allies in all but name (as is reflected by a few special case rules, such as the prohibition against the Lyrans entering Klingon space or hexes 0805 and 0905, since this would provide overt proof that an alliance exists).

What are the penalties for the Lyrans entering these hexes, and where may these be found in the rules?

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, February 20, 2022 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Can Seltorian STSs dock captured ships in an appropriately sized docking bay to avoid their being recaptured per (305.25) OPTION 5?

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, February 22, 2022 - 11:51 am: Edit

Is a capital hex still considered to be a capital hex even after it has been captured for purposes of (450.13)?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 03, 2022 - 11:03 am: Edit

Bump on the following question:

---

Quote:

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 28, 2022 - 05:01 pm: Edit

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

May a mauler use its directed damage benefit at 1:1 against a number of attrition unit factors up to the mauler's maul capability? The enabling rule to attack multiple attrition units using the "one" directed damage attack is 302.54.

An Argument for the Affirmative: 308.4 states that the mauler may use it's benefit "at their full value 'for directed damage'." (i.e., the one directed damage attack). The attrition units are attacked as a group under 302.54, and hence a 10 point mauler may destroy up to 10 attrition unit factors for 10 damage points - assuming all other conditions of using the mauler in this way have been satisfied.

An Argument for the Negative: An attrition unit is treated as a single unit. Even if 302.54 allows multiple attrition unit factors to be attacked in a directed damage use, the mauler can direct on no more than one attrition unit at 1:1. (I.e., one fighter factor (1 damage point) or one PF (2 damage points)).

Ruling respectfully requested. Thank you.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 03, 2022 - 11:10 am: Edit

Q539.72 and apparent conflict with 509.23/509.1C.

Rule 539.72 (referring to TTs built on FF and DD hulls) states that "two theater transports, working together, can move a mobile base."

Rule 509.1-C states that "Groups" of TTs can perform the move/setup MB mission. The definition of "group" appears to be in rule 509.23, which requires THREE TTs to complete a mission in a single turn.

The rules appear to be in conflict, with one requiring two TTs to move (and by implication setup) a MB and the other requiring three.

I will note that 509 was an update that happened in the 2010 revisions, and that 539 was from the 2006 version of Strategic Operations, which has yet to be updated.

Therefore, I suspect that the updated 2010 rule controls (requiring three TTs to move/setup a MB in a single turn) - and that SO will be updated in due course.

However, official clarification is respectfully requested (and of course a note made to update SO, if desired).

Thank you.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, March 03, 2022 - 07:21 pm: Edit

TedF - Don't forget (302.54) when going against attrition units, (302.452) allows one to select all (or some) fighters or PFs from one unit, a mauler would make that a bit easier (as the one directed damage ooption) ...

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Thursday, March 03, 2022 - 10:04 pm: Edit

Ted, I honestly don't see the contradiction in (509) as you state it.

2 TTs can *move* a mobile base. To me, this is a base that is disassembled, in its component sections and requiring transport.

3 TTs are needed to *set up / take down* a mobile base.

No conflict between them.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, March 05, 2022 - 07:29 pm: Edit

@Mike: Re-read 509.1-C. It's BOTH move and setup - so, yes, there is a contradiction.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, March 06, 2022 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Ted, I've read the 509 rules a few times and don't see the contradiction.

I think the issue is in your statement "The rules appear to be in conflict, with one requiring two TTs to move (and by implication setup) a MB and the other requiring three." Because there is a defined requirement for 3 TTs to setup the base, and 2 to move it, your implication is instead an inference.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 06, 2022 - 03:48 pm: Edit

The current DRAFT of the SO rulebook states:

---

Quote:

(539.72) CARRYING PODs: Most Theater Transports (those with a “U” in the special functions spot on the counter) can carry a single pod or pallet, but none of them can use it (not even to transport EPs or supplies). This could be done to move (for example) a battle pod out of an isolated supply grid and into the main supply grid without using a tug or LTT. A theater transport carrying a heavy pod is considered “overloaded” (517.44).

The Federation DWT cannot carry a pod and as such does not have a “U” on the counter. The Tholian FCR and CPC are theater transports (3CPC counts as a tug).

Two theater transports, working together, can move a mobile base; installing it defers to (509.23) and would take three ships one turn or one ship three turns. A theater transport can carry (and deploy) one PDU or one base module.

---

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, March 06, 2022 - 10:20 pm: Edit

Chicken or Egg Question:
Can a Captured Ship be sold to the WYN? I have a question on timing.

Under (305.23) Option 3: He (the capturing player) can hold it out of combat and subsequently return it to one of his bases (305.3), where it will be repaired and refitted for use in combat. It is replaced by one of the "Ship #" markers and uses its former factors for combat purposes. The race which captured the ship must perform a conversion costing 3 EPs before using the ship in combat.

Does this refit need to be performed before sending into the cluster? The above rule only mentions use in combat. Can the repair be done without the refit in order to get the higher trade value?

In the WYN Trade section refit of a captured ship is not mentioned and may in fact not matter anyway as they will tear out systems to make it part of the WYN navy. See the line about the WYN "do not care about how it (the ship) came to be built"

(449.23) DELIVERY: Upon delivery of the ship, the WYNs will pay to the empire selling the ship a number of EPs equal to double the original construction cost of the base hull type of that ship if it is uncrippled and to the original construction cost if it is crippled, up to a maximum of 10 EPs per ship. The “original construction cost” is defined as the lowest cost for which a base hull of that type could be built by any of the various methods, not necessarily the cost of that specific ship. (I.e., you cannot overbuild a 5-point frigate just to get more from the WYNs when it is delivered. To the WYNs, it is a new ship, and they do not care how it came to be built) This money is credited to the owning empire’s treasury without having to send a ship to pick it up. If an X-ship is sent, the WYNs pay in XTPs.

Does the refit of the ship make the ship 'owned by the capturing player...in order to get the funds'? Or is it the moment of capture (die roll and subsequent survival of the combat hex where the capture roll took place), that title-ownership is transferred?

Example: The Kzinti capture a Lyran DDG and rather than repair and refit it want to send it into the cluster. Trying to maximize their return (not just being happy to get more than scrap value...go figure) they want to repair it first doubling the return (also a touch silly, but they do come out ahead even though repair slots are at a premium). Is this possible?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 07, 2022 - 10:25 am: Edit

Thank you, Chuck.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Monday, March 07, 2022 - 02:42 pm: Edit

Possibly dumb question.

Can ships that "arrive on map by strategic movement" meaning the Lyran Far Stars and Kzinti Baron's Fleets, NOT?

For instance, can the Lyrans leave some ships behind to be converted off map, or the Kzinti to be part of an off-map Reserve?

It almost looks like not since 601 says "must arrive" but I that statement is made in the context of the requirement that they enter the map at an SMN.

Given the situation with the Kzinti DDV (which MUST remain off map unless paid for) I would imagine the answer must be that it is not required for the entire fleet to move on map.

But worth checking.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 07, 2022 - 03:50 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

(204.39) SPECIAL OFF-MAP ARRIVALS: The Kzinti Baron’s Fleet and Lyran Far Stars Fleet arrive during the campaign by Strategic Movement. They do not count against the Strategic Movement limit for their first hex on the board only. They must enter the board in a hex adjacent to the off-map area (or be placed in their respective off-map area) at the start of the Strategic Movement Phase of the indicated turn. Unless they continue to move by Strategic Movement (and in doing so count against the Strategic Movement limits), the first hex entered must contain a friendly SMN. These arrivals from off-map need not arrive in the same hex; some could arrive at an SMN and shift to Operational Movement on the next turn, while others could continue by Strategic Movement to other SMNs.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 07, 2022 - 04:40 pm: Edit

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 28, 2022 - 05:01 pm: Edit

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

May a mauler use its directed damage benefit at 1:1 against a number of attrition unit factors up to the mauler's maul capability? The enabling rule to attack multiple attrition units using the "one" directed damage attack is 302.54.

An Argument for the Affirmative: 308.4 states that the mauler may use it's benefit "at their full value 'for directed damage'." (i.e., the one directed damage attack). The attrition units are attacked as a group under 302.54, and hence a 10 point mauler may destroy up to 10 attrition unit factors for 10 damage points - assuming all other conditions of using the mauler in this way have been satisfied.

An Argument for the Negative: An attrition unit is treated as a single unit. Even if 302.54 allows multiple attrition unit factors to be attacked in a directed damage use, the mauler can direct on no more than one attrition unit at 1:1. (I.e., one fighter factor (1 damage point) or one PF (2 damage points)).

Ruling respectfully requested. Thank you.

======================

Rule Reference:

---

Quote:

(302.54) OPTIONS: A player designating Directed Damage against fighters or PFs has two options.

(302.451) OPTION #1: The designating player may do so against any or all such units in the opposing Battle Force, not merely against one such factor or “ship equivalent” group of factors. In such case, however, the owning player selects which carriers (bases, tenders, PDUs, etc.) that the destroyed fighters/PFs are removed from.

(302.452) OPTION #2: The designating player can select as the target for Directed Damage all (or some) of the fighters or (not and) PFs assigned to a single given unit. Unit includes a base, PDU, carrier, PFT, or an independent fighter/PF unit. In such case, only a limited number of fighters/PFs can be destroyed, but the designating player can decide which carrier (or whatever) loses them.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 07, 2022 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Chuck, Thank you.

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Monday, March 14, 2022 - 12:32 am: Edit

Quick question: Can a SB in a capital hex send IFFs to other systems? For instance, could IFFs from Kzintai fight at Vronkett? I can't find anything one way or the other, but there's probably a rule I'm missing.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, March 14, 2022 - 08:47 pm: Edit

Off-hand, I'd say yes as they can react outside the capital hex, but they coulkd also be pinned into their home system by opposing forces.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, March 14, 2022 - 08:55 pm: Edit

It's covered in the rules somewhere. My vision makes it hard to look up but I remember this specific case.

***

Found the rule, it is (511.572).

(511.572) The Battle Force must include the PDUs and bases of
the specific planet designated by the Attacker in Step 5, but not
the PDUs and bases associated with other planets in the hex.
The fighters and PFs from the bases (but not PDUs) of other
planets in the same system could be used in the Battle Force,
but would be treated as independent ship equivalents under
(302.35); they would count against the Command Rating and
the fighter limit. (Fighters and PFs from other systems in the hex
cannot be used.)

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, March 17, 2022 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Do the RNX, DGX, LBX and LMX have stinger X for their hybrid ftrs?

(Asking for the Cyberboard update review)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 17, 2022 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Yes.

While it is initially implied by the original F&E AO rules that some Hydran X-ships carried X-fighters, ADB has evolved the use of X-tech in the SFU with X-ships able to carry standard fighters. I would now suggest that any F&E unit counters that actually use X-fighters be designated with the number of fighters followed by an "X"; such as '(9X)'.

---

Quote:

(523.113) Hydran X-ships operated an advanced version of
the Stinger fighter; see (523.5).

(523.51) STINGER-X: Hydran X-ships operated an
advanced version of the Stinger fighter. These are more
effective in combat than other fighters (as shown by the
higher fighter factors compared with the actual number of
fighters in the SFB version of these ships).

---

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, March 22, 2022 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Will also post this in Q&A discussions, but I can't see a formal ruling on 3 of the 4 points and Chucks ruling on point 1 seems to contradict a rule (I don't have the later Captains Logs, so please accept my apology if all 4 points was covered off in that).

Question both about owed points and the annihilated rule.

"By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, April 22, 2013 - 01:07 pm: Edit

I'll restate this:


The intent of plus points is to carry over damage points that COULD have been given up (but was not) to resolve damage but did not meet the REQUIREMENT where the remaining number of unresolved damage points is less than half of the smallest defense factor of the remaining units in the Current Battle Force.


The damage absorbing player must have a remaining unit in the current battle force in order to carry-over any plus points into a following round battle (or pursuit).

Absurd example for illustrative purposes:

Three crippled ships (B10-, B10-, and E4) remain to enter the first round of battle verses a Hydran fleet of PGF and 11xHN.

The Klingon selects the E4 to face the Hydrans and exclude the 2xB10s as unchosen flagships; the crippled B10s have no part of this battle round.

The Hydrans manage to score 15 points of damage; the crippled E4 does no damage.

The E4 is destroys leaving 13 points unresolved.

The Hydran player cannot claim there are 13 plus points available to take into a following standard battle round OR even three points into a pursuit battle round BECAUSE there are NO remaining units from the current round that could have taken the excess damage but did not meet the minimum damage requirements.

FEDS SENDS"

So the question is : -

1) Does 'over damage' (classic definition of the battle force line was annihilated) carry over

2) Does excess damage taken carry over

3) Rule 302.55 AND 302.63 (specifically 302.632).

From Chucks post he is saying point 1 doesn't apply - which is fair enough and 95% logical*.

It doesn't cover off point 2 though - and from 308.252, it only covers devastated and non-defended planets - so as an example.

Attacker v 2 PDU's+ Defenders in a hex

Round 1 - 100 v 40 = both sides do 25% damage

So 25 v 10 and both sides let fall.

Defender self kills 2 x PDU's and the 12F and takes 7 of the 10 damage on the planet - no owed.

Attacker crippled a D5 and F5 and is owed 2.

Round 2 - Defender doesn't defend the planet and it's 100 v 0 (noting planet is NOT devasteted).

Attacker does 50% and 50 damage and defender does no damage.

The planet is devastated and the balance of 47 damage is cancelled - as there is no defenders to take it on (as per Chucks ruling).

The attacker took no damage and so the 2 damage from round 1 is still available to be carried over to the pursuit battle.

So owed points to the attacker, can carry over it would seem?


Point 3 (and hands up, I have NEVER noticed this).

Who has in either their printed 2010 rules or the F&E 2010 PDF rules -which has a rule (302.55) Annihilation and (302.63) Annihilation?

302.63 has 3 points to it - and 302.632 does state owed points after a battle line has been destroyed DOES carry over if thee are other forces in the hex (so in Chucks example, the 13 points would carry over to round 2 or 3 points to the pursuit).

Best guess - 302.63 should be deleted?


There is also a forth 'weird' possibility for Capital Assaults - what happens if the defences of a planet which through 511.573 originally received the crippled ships have all been destroyed - but other planets still have defences and the attacker attack the planet with cripples?

The cripples can be targeted via 511.573 - but other than the planet (which could be devastated as 511.551 can be applied), the defender might have no line to defend with?

So - the attacker gets one attack on the planet - kills a ship via directed damage and the cripples ships must then retreat - to avoid the Attacker repeating the legal attack?

Not sure that is the intention, but as far as I can tell, it is legal? i.e. other than retreating, it's not possible to guard crippled ships after the 'crippled ship planet' is reduced to no defences?

(Yes, the Defender might be able to send ships to the planet, but if there is a planet with defences and they don't want to waste ships defending the other planet, as it could make it easier to capture the hex etc).


* - 95% point and it may just be 'it will not occur often and so can be ignored'.

What is to stop an attacker creating a terrible line to achieve an objective - and then putting in a proper line?

example

Attack against a Capital Planet, which has 300 Compot in Fixed Defences (and 120 compot in the ships linbe say).

Attacker builds a force of
CC, 8 x Frigates and 1 x 10 pt Mauler.

Attacks, gets 20 damage and kills 3 PDU's - 18 Fighters find a new base (there are various ways to achieve this).

Defender does 120 damage - Attacker self kills everything for say 76 damage - and the balance of 44 damage is cancelled.

Attacker then repeats to kill another 3 PDU's twice - and then with the Fixed Compot down to say 221, a main full line is then sent in.


In other words, is the intention to allow an attacker to take down defences, potentially by deliberately putting up weak lines and being allowed to ignore excess damage?

(Yes, the Attacker is going to lose a lot of hulls - but if the attacker can self kill 20 Frigates over 20 CA's or better hulls**, the gain (an extra PDU is killed a round say), it would seem to be a very cheap way to deal with high compot hexes?)

** - It's possible a good attacking force might be able to handle 100+ damage being taken by self crippling everything, but if you get over 120 damage, it may mean CA or better hulls may die anyway - and it may give the attacker a 'free' choice - Self cripple a line of DN's or self kill a line of mainly Frigates??

So, is that the intention?

Thanks

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, March 24, 2022 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Note: (302.613) specifically states that Drone Ships (309.0) and carriers (501.4) and PFTs (502.41) sending their attrition units to the battle force could never be given up as voluntary damage. So these ships could not be voluntarily crippled to resolve any remaining plus points under (308.2) and (302.632).