Q537.11 (New PO 2021 rules). May one select one of the 3 options twice, or does the rule require selecting two separate items from the list of 3 options?

This rule says, "Any occupied planet without two of the following [IGCE on planet, PDU on planet (not PGB), commando ship in orbit] automatically rebels (537.15)."

Is it possible to pick two G ship in orbit in order to prevent an automatic rebellion - or must you have two *different* units on the list (i.e., a PDU and a G ship, an IGCE and a PDU, or an IGCE and a G ship)?

Note the answer has profound implications on game play.

-It is not possible to lay down a PDU on the turn a planet is captured, due to the sequence of play. It is not possible to buy an IGCE for a planet unless a PDU is present. Therefore, if the answer is you must have two *different* units from the list to prevent automatic rebellion - then this means every single planet captured on a Coalition turn will always automatically rebell on the subsequent Alliance turn, and vice versa. It is unavoidable.

This result, in turn, has important consequences on game play. For one, a rebelling planet is not a supply point for the conquering player. For another, under the new PO rules (537.15) the rebelling planet may be the target of a reserve fleet.

However, if all it takes is two G ships in orbit to prevent auto-rebellion, then a little simple planning by having the attacking force come in with two G ships will prevent the auto rebellion.

Official ruling respectfully requested.

Thank you.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 25, 2022 - 05:37 pm: Edit

Q537.1 Are steps 1-4 performed *per empire* or once *per side*?

All of the 537.1 rules are silent on this issue. Therefore, arguably, the resistance movement is evaluated per *side* (i.e., the Hydrans, Federation, Kzinti, and Gorn are all lumped together, roll a die to see if any one of their captured planets has an "event" under step 2, and then figure out which of the many planets among them has the vent occur).

However, it could have been intended that the procedure is to be performed *per empire*. Thus, for example, the Hydrans will go through 1-4, the Kzinti will go through 1-4, etc - meaning resistance movements are more likely to happen *somewhere* from turn to turn.

Clarification respectfully requested.

Thank you.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 25, 2022 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Q537.11 Are captured formerly neutral planets treated under steps 2-4, or ignored altogether?

Rule 537.11 says that "planets that were neutral before they were captured do not rebel."

Does this mean that they never check for an event at step 2, are not included in possible locations at step 3, and will never sabotage, infiltrate, sabotage, or go into rebellion?

Or, does this mean that a neutral planet is simply except from auto rebellion?

If so, then are all neutrals combined together as one? Or (from the above question) all combined with all possible Alliance planets?

Clarification respectfully requested.

Thank you.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Friday, March 25, 2022 - 05:55 pm: Edit

<moved to discussion area>

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Sunday, March 27, 2022 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Retreat priority question.

There is a substantial Hydran fleet in 0412, and both border BATS are destroyed. The Lyran fleet remaining in 0413 has retreated. There are also Hydrans in 0212, but 0313 and 0513 are open.

Must the retreating Lyrans follow the "shortest supply path" and get mauled in 0412 (I don't think so) or can they under priority 2 ignore 0412 as there are lots of Hydrans there and instead follow a longer supply path to 0313 or 0513 (I believe this is correct)?

Priority 2 has that "unless no other hex is available" language which could be read to mean that you must follow the shortest supply path anyway. But Priority 3 is lower on the totem pole, right?

By Charles W Popp (Captnchuck67) on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - 08:21 pm: Edit

Got a couple question on Scenario 612.0 Wayward wind in CO.

1)One turn#1 do the Klingons perform just as they do in 601 The wind as in 601.16 ?

2) Hydran turn 1 and 2 allowable builds. Do they just get what is listed as prewar and then anything else would be overbuilds?

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - 09:47 pm: Edit

Charles.

1. Yes, the only difference is who is being attacked.

2. Yes

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 31, 2022 - 05:11 pm: Edit

Q537.11 what happens to a rebelling planet if the planet is abandoned by the attacker? Does the planet remain in rebellion?

For example, the Klingons occupy minor Hydran planet 519. Unable to garrison the planet properly, the planet goes into automatic rebellion under 537.11. The Klingon player, noting that a planet in rebellion can be the target of a reserve fleet, and further having other ambitions in the Hydran theater, elects to completely abandon planet 519.

As a result, the planet immediately reverts to a devastated planet under the Hydran player's control (no ship garrisoning the planet).

However, what happens to the rebellion? Is the planet still a valid target of a reserve fleet because the planet is still in rebellion, even though no ships are present at 519?

Note the Hydran player may want to send a reserve fleet to 519, even though there will be no fight, simply to reposition forces for a subsequent Alliance turn.

Ruling respectfully requested, thank you.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, April 27, 2022 - 12:14 pm: Edit

After rereading (511.22) I'm curious. Recognizing the extremely low chances of its happening, can the Tholians conquer planets and receive the production per (508.2)?

Nothing I can find prohibits this or would require a “first servant species”.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, May 03, 2022 - 10:13 am: Edit

Q449.11 Do the Kzintis accumulate WYN trade rights on Turns 1 and 2 when playing the Wayward Wind Scenario (612.0)? The Kzintis are considered to be on a wartime economy during Turns 1 and 2, much the same as the Hydrans are under (601.162).

Support Ruling:
Q: Can the Klingons perform WYN trade via blockade running on Turn #1 of the General War? They definitely accumulate trade rights then (449.11). However, (601.161) forbids Klingon ships from leaving their territory on Turn #1 of the GW scenario. I find no enabling rule that provides an exception to (601.161); so my guess is that the answer to my question is “no.” However, it makes little sense to me to negotiate trade rights and then be unable to actually trade. So, maybe there’s an oversight somewhere and it’s meant to be allowed for the Klingons to blockade run EPs to the WYN on Turn #1? Hence, it’s possible that the answer might be “yes.”
A: The Klingon Empire can use a blockade run to go and return from the WYN Cluster in the Raid Phase (3A). This allows the Klingon Empire to send a transport ship clandestinely to the WYNs to exchange Economic Points with the WYN Cluster.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 10, 2022 - 02:52 am: Edit

Copied from the Q&A Discussion

Can a PDU/PGB be a Valid Flagship?

302.32 states units which have a Zero Command Rating can be eligible Flagships.

303.34 states a PDU/PGB can't be Flagship (and doesn't need one).

(To also add, 302.323 states Convoy's and FRD's have no command rating).

So the general rule of '1 of 3 highest' is trumped by the specific rule, so a PDU (or FRD/Convoy) can't be a flagship?

Info to help : -

I wonder if when Command Ratings was amended from lots of units having '-' to having '0', the '0' comment about them being a Eligible Flagships was added, but the Specific Rule about PDU/PGB's (and FRD/Convoys) wasn't amended, either in error or on purpose?


So, should 302.323 and 303.4 have been amended?

Thanks

====


FEDS will address this with the staff and ADB at StratCon 22 in July as part of our update to Basic Set rules.

By Tom Lusco (Tlusco) on Wednesday, May 11, 2022 - 09:18 am: Edit

524.12 defines the CPF as the mech links and supplies fitted to "standard warships"

524.221 lists the types of units that may not be included in carrying a CPF

Given the specificity of 524.221, I'd think many "non-standard" ships can carry CPF; basically, everything not in the list of 524.221.

Which suggests that a carrier and its escorts can contribute to carrying a CPF. The CPF obviously still counts against command limits. Am I interpreting this all correctly?

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 - 04:27 pm: Edit

Clarification for FO rule (515.332)

(515.332) The following types of units, if used as escorts, lose their special abilities: SFG‡ units, scouts, maulers, ground combat ships‡, and drone ships. These are treated under (515.34) and lose one-half of their offensive value.

There is a small conflict between rules 515.332 above and 515.34 below in how special ability ships lose their attack factors. (It is clear they lose their special abilities.) Which is the intended method?

(515.34) STANDARD WARSHIPS not otherwise excluded may be used as “ad hoc” escorts, but their offensive value is reduced to one-half of the printed factor (round fractions down) or by three, whichever is a greater reduction (e.g., a Kzinti FF would become a 1-4). Their attack strength cannot be reduced to a point less than zero. Their defense strength is not changed.

Should this rule say...
(515.332) The following types of units, if used as escorts, lose their special abilities: SFG‡ units, scouts, maulers, ground combat ships‡, and drone ships. These are treated under (515.34) BUT ONLY lose one-half of their offensive value.

This means lose the special ability AND only 1/2 the AF which could be more or less than -3 (the upper limit reduction set by 515.34).

Or should it say...
(515.332) The following types of units, if used as escorts, lose their special abilities: SFG‡ units, scouts, maulers, ground combat ships‡, and drone ships. These are treated under (515.34) FOR REDUCTION OF ATTACK FACTORS.

This one would be the greater of either 1/2 AF or subtract 3 (not negative #) like all other standard ships.

Note: changes above in all caps are to show the suggested change (not shouting).

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, June 15, 2022 - 07:35 pm: Edit

I'm not sure if this counts as a "regular" Q&A question, or as an after-action report for Tactical Operations, or even as a "work-in-progress" question for the War of Return portion of Civil Wars. So apologies in advance if this ought to be posted elsewhere:

In the TacOps rulebook, the (634.0) INTO THE WHIRLPOOL scenario enables players to attempt to conquer the WYN Star Cluster. Part of this scenario covers the "tactical" effect of the WYN radiation shell.

But in strategic terms, if an outside empire were to succeed in conquering the Cluster, are they permitted to use one or more of the planets inside the Cluster, and/or a mobile base placed inside of the Cluster, as a Strategic Movement Node for travel through the radiation shell? And if so, is there any particular impediment to strategic movement into or out of the Cluster in this fashion?

This might be also be a factor for a would-be War of Return scenario, in terms of whether or not the WYNs themselves would be allowed to send forces via strategic movement through the shell to and from Battle Station Rampart [see (T8S4.0) in SFB Module C3], should they succeed in capturing this base during the course of that campaign.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 16, 2022 - 12:54 am: Edit

I would have to say that strategic movement in or out of the WYN cluster is not possible.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, June 16, 2022 - 12:10 pm: Edit

Thank you for the clarification.

As a follow-up; I don't recall if this question was asked before, but apologies if so:

For operational movement into or out of the WYN Cluster, would the effects of the radiation zone "wear off" quickly enough so as not to impede such movement, at the time scale used at a Federation and Empire level? Or would there be some sort of "terrain penalty" (say, one or two hexes' worth of operational movement) imposed for each crossing?

I suppose this would also be a War of Return factor, in terms of how much of allied (or enemy) space the Usurper's ships can move into or out of in a given turn.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, June 16, 2022 - 03:36 pm: Edit

Since the product is published for those scenarios and this is a Strat Move ruling/exception, suggest this be added to F&E Basic rules.

This could be likely done as a restriction under a revised (204.21) describing Strategic Movement Routes.

Propose something along the lines of:
(204.211) Restrictions: Strategic movement into or out of the WYN cluster is not possible even if there is a valid SMN inside the WYN Cluster.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 16, 2022 - 06:29 pm: Edit

I will take care of it, eventually. Since nobody has conquered them yet, it's not a crisis.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, June 18, 2022 - 12:25 pm: Edit

Only know of 1 game which got to the end - so will ask in Q&A discussion too.

Rule 603.3 - Victory Conditions

The 'end of game' Calculation on Economic Points - how is that 'done'?

Example
Alliance capture a planet on A33 - does that count?
Coalition capture a planet on C34 - does that count?

i.e. Does the normal timescale of Ep production for captured (or re-captured) planets apply?

The same thing applies for Devastated/Recovering Planets.

If a plant got to the 4th turn of recovery on turn 34, does it count at full or devastated value at the end?

I am guessing, the same planet status that applied at the start of turn 34 is applied - and you don't in effect do a turn 35 economic turn?

i.e. a Planet captured on turn 32, WOULD count (at devastated value) towards the Victory Points, but a Planet captured on turn 33 WOULD NOT.

A planet liberated on say turn 30, recovering on turns 31, 32,33 and 34 would produce the reduced Level of EP's for the Victory Point calculation - (as 508 has the table which helps confirm when Recovery and Full EP value).

Thanks

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, June 21, 2022 - 09:39 am: Edit

I'd like some clarification about SIDS. Different bases have different SIDS values, SIDS=4,4.5, or 5. I can do math, and understand why this is. Does each value require 4 times its value for directed damage as opposed to the (308.811) definition? Are there differing repair costs as opposed to (308.85)? (420.611) seems to limit only 1 tug repairing a given base at a time. Is this correct, if not what is the limit? Can an uncrippled base receive repairs from a tug, 2 engineer regiments, and perform (420.613) self repairs on the same turn?

Thanks, John

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, June 22, 2022 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Requesting clarification of the following passage from (603.3):

Each side makes the following calculation: Take the total economic income (ignoring exhaustion, including devastated planets at their reduced levels) and multiply it by two.

As I've explained in Q&A discussions, I actually think the planets portion of this is clear. But as it pertains to provinces, I think it is unclear. The lack of clarity arises from the question "economic income as of when?" In particular, provinces normally don't generate EP for the Alliance as of the end of an Alliance turn. There are a lot of examples to illustrate this. If the powers that be want a full list, I can attempt to provide one. But I'm thinking there is more hope of getting an answer for a single example:

Suppose a Fed province was conquered by the Klingons as of the start of turn C34. Ignoring exhaustion, the Klingons received 1EP for it at that point. However, by the end of A34, the province is held by the Federation.

Who, if anyone, gets victory points for the province? And how many?

Partial proposed ruling: For purposes of (603.3), economic totals for provinces depend on the current board position only. Rules (430.24) ["Abandoned Occupation"] and (430.31)["Ownership"] are ignored. However, (430.12) ["Grid"] does apply.

Still unclear to me in my partial proposal: For end-of-game VP purposes, can enemy fleets disrupt the grid? My gut is "No", but I can see it going either way. But regardless of that, I think a province that is out of range of all supply points should not count generate any VP.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, June 24, 2022 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Relating to William's question above, in a different topic (different question), SVC ended up weighing in directly on another VP calculation issue. So, I'm re-phrasing the issue as a question and then copying SVCs "answer."

Posted here for posterity, publication, possible update to the basic set to clarify the last sentence of 603.3.

Note William Jockusch raised the issue of "base upgrade VP cheese", but SVC's answer was clear. That being said, it's possible that someone could convince SVC to change his mind, since SVC invited us to make a case. Just FYI.

Here's the parapharased question and the answer:

Q603.3: Victory Point Calculation

The rule states, in relevant part:

---

Quote:

... but newly built bases do not count unless they replace lost bases (and must be within three hexes of the specific base they replaced) or unless they were built in captured enemy territory (not neutral territory). In either case, newly built bases in the same hex as another friendly base do not count at all. BATS upgraded to SBs count as SBs.

---

---

Quote:

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 23, 2022 - 05:49 pm: Edit

It should be explicit either way, and you can make a case either way, but I read, meant, and wrote "BATS upgraded to SBs count as SBs" to mean that any BATS anywhere upgraded to an SB counts as an SB and gains you 15 points.

You could argue that it "should not," and that is what is being argued. So stop worrying about what it says; I wrote it and I know what it says (they count).

If you think it should or should not say that, make your case.

---

By fabio poli (Fabioz) on Saturday, June 25, 2022 - 09:57 am: Edit

(537.11) List the units needed to avoid "failure to secure" an enemy planet.
It specify: IGCEs (that can only be added after a PDU/PGB), PDUs and Commando ships. 2 of them needed for a planet.
It does not mentions Marine Majors, Prime teams, Diplo teams. Does them count or not?
It also don't mention the G on Commando ships. Does the number of G on Commando ships means anything (say a D6G counts as 2 garrison) or even a crippled Commando ship, without G, does counts?

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, June 26, 2022 - 05:02 pm: Edit

Fabio, if you consider the requirements listed in (537.11) you'll see that two things are implied in them. One is sufficient boots on the ground to hold territory, and the second is rapid, over the horizon, strike ability. Marine Majors, Prime Teams, and Diplomatic teams have none of these.

Per (521.831) the ground combat ship may put an IGCE on a planet, but independent GCEs may not be placed on a planet if this would result in the number of IGCEs exceeding the number of defense battalions. Extra Gs do not affect anything.

Nothing in rule (537.11) requires that the commando ship not be crippled. It can still travel faster than light and provide some orbital bombardment assistance to the ground troops.

That's my unofficial interpretation.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Friday, July 01, 2022 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Q502.61

Can free PF flotillas received under the captioned rule be deployed on mobile bases?