3) No.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Saturday, December 03, 2022 - 10:19 am: Edit

Anyone have any thoughts on Q1 or Q2?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, December 03, 2022 - 11:49 am: Edit

John

1) The Kzinti FF can't retreat to 803 or 703 as it is outnumbered there and unless ALL hexes have a larger force in, can't be retreated into (i.e. if every hex had 2 equivalents in (as Wyn hex is never a required hex to retreat to) - a single ship would ignore that priority restriction)

603 and 604 are empty and so legal hexes to retreat into - supply will dictate if one is more of a priority than the other.

Remember, once a Hex has been discounted, it can't be re-included, outside the permitted reasons (Fighting Retreat or ALL hexes at that priority level are discounted).

2) I believe chain substitutions are allowed (I can't find anything on it though), but you can only substitute the 2 x FF's from the Schedule CL build - i.e.

You can down sub DN to a FF and sub the FF for a EFF - but you can't sub the CM into a CL and then sub 'that' CL into 2 x FF (705.2).

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Saturday, December 03, 2022 - 07:18 pm: Edit

Thanks, Paul.

To clarify the response to Q1. Assuming hexes 603 and 604 would be out of supply, did the Kzinti ship have the option of retreating into 803 or 703 as a fighting retreat or are those two hexes prohibited altogether?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, December 04, 2022 - 02:47 pm: Edit

John

Both are prohibited -

Fighting Retreat only allows you to go into a hex which has an equal or smaller enemy force (Priority 4), not a larger force.

So if 603 has 1 Lyran FF in it, and 604 was empty - the Kzinti could declare a Fighting Retreat into 603 (if 603 tactically was better for them).

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, December 05, 2022 - 12:42 pm: Edit

From Q&A:

---

Quote:

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, December 05, 2022 - 12:14 pm: Edit

"If the units performing the mission leave the hex or are destroyed, development is canceled, and all EPs spent for it are lost." Does this imply that if any, but not all, of the units survive and is/are not forced to leave that the EPs are not lost and the mission continues?

---

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, December 10, 2022 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Are there any limitations on Orion transfers? For example, on turn 34, could the Feds give up 20EP to immediately add 10EP to the Kzinti?

Could the Gorns?

Could they each in addition spend 20EP to give 10EP to the Hydrans?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, December 10, 2022 - 04:12 pm: Edit

Good question

I believe Orion Transfers are only internal - not between Allies - 410.341.

Allies only via 435.0 can deliver Ep's to partial grid or full grid - so Orions can't do it.

(435.22 confirms how it is done, and Orions are not mentioned).

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, December 17, 2022 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Continued from Q and A.

I cannot agree. The target of a raid will either be a slow/stationary, thus not approaching a raider, or mobile and valuable, thus moving away from a raider at best speed. 100 hexes is too far to start with 3 turns available.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, December 17, 2022 - 09:15 pm: Edit

Well knowing context in this type of media can come off poorly don’t take this wrong.

Thiis IS F&E. (Even though Stew used D17 from SFB for his theoretical comparison.)
In FE game sure I agree a slower / stable unit could be the raid target. The most common target is an empty province targeted for its EP. Usually a reacting police unit will show up on the off chance it can drive away the Raider.

After that are single ships or two weaker ships, a raiding player here is targeting them to reduce enemy ship count (by at least one) and drive the force away from the hex again hoping to also disrupt a province for its EP.

In SFB a target might turn and run or retrograde so the gap would stay a gap a might bit longer but if defending units are in the scenario that won’t be the case and they will close the gap to buy time for the target to try and escape

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Sunday, December 18, 2022 - 07:22 pm: Edit

You can't realistically start an SFB scenario at a range of 100, especially with an "objective" target, because any ship at a range of greater than 50 at any time can simply choose to have disengaged. This increases to 75 if the other side has a scout.

Under the tactical intelligence rules (even if they aren't being used per se), coarse hull discrimination is at range 40, anything beyond that you wouldn't necessarily _know_ you were engaging the correct/expected force, So I would suggest starting a scenario at a range of 40 is sort of a practical maximum starting range.

By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Tuesday, December 20, 2022 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Since the comment in the Q&A made me think about it:

I think the Hydrans have to take the 'absolute maximum attrition line' crown (shocking, I know). Assuming late war, with an Admiral and a Marine Major General, fighting over 20PDU and a Starbase:

20xPDU, SB, IC+MKE+MKE+DWE MKP 7xRNX CAT for 212 total Fighter Factors (23 Regular Squadrons, 1 Oversized Squadron, 60 Hybrid Factors) and 13 PF Flotillas.

It would weigh in at something on the order of 550 compot and 11 EW (with some variability depending on what you stuck in the scout box, and prime team missions). Ouch.

Now they just need the money to build all that.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, December 20, 2022 - 03:03 pm: Edit

Don't forget the MEGA fighter counters...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, December 20, 2022 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Patrick, up the SB to an SBX for more compot as well.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Tuesday, January 03, 2023 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Assume a battle occurred in a hex adjacent to a supply point (base, planet, etc.), and the player owning that supply point is retreating. Am I correct that retreat sub-priority 3D requires that player to retreat onto that supply point since zero hexes would be the "shortest supply path"? Other hexes adjacent to the supply point would be in supply, but it seems that they would fail the "shortest path" requirement.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, January 03, 2023 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Assuming all previous priorities were satisfied and there is no other hex that is also zero hexes from a supply point, yes.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, January 25, 2023 - 06:19 pm: Edit

Per Rich's recommendation I clarified/combined and moved this here for discussion.

I have seen the Klingons put up 3 D6V carrier groups (5 fighters each, 15 total) + an E4V carrier group (3 carrier fighters) when added together and fed forward from the Support Echelon these 4 carrier groups combine their (18 total) fighters into three allowed Independent Fighter Squadrons with 6 fighters each. (Legal under 302.35)

On the opposite battle board, a Hydran LB+RN combine their Hybrids to form 6 fighters into an independent group feeding them forward from the support echelon (allowed under 302.351)

Additionally a Hydran GRV (a carrier w/ 4 ftrs) + DE (escort w/ 3 Hybrid ftrs) + AH are also in my support echelon.
The GRV+DE+AH group has a mix of fighters (Hybrid and Carrier). Can these fighters (6 of the 7 total anyway) be combined and fed forward to be one independent fighter squadron with a total force of 6 fighters under (302.35 & 302.351)?

In my research it says:
(302.35) INDEPENDENT FIGHTERS/PFs: A carrier, base, or PF tender which is in the Battle Hex but which is not part of the Battle Force can send its fighters or PFs to participate in the Battle Force. These carriers and PFTs are in the “support echelon” and cannot be attacked except by (302.563).

(302.351) Each squadron of six (or fewer) fighter factors (not necessarily from the same ship) or six (or fewer) PFs counts as a “ship” for purposes of the Command Rating when employed separately from the base, carrier, or PFT. See heavy fighters‡ (530.113) for exceptions and restrictions.
Note that partial ship equivalents [see (501.9) for fighters and (502.46) for PFs] count against the command limits but do not count as a full ship. Fighters, PFs, and crippled ships can be combined into ship equivalents; see (203.542).
Hydran hybrid ships can send their fighters forward in this manner, but in that case they would count against the limit of fighter squadrons in the battle.

So it seems it is intended separately they be allowed to be fed forward but no mention of grouping the different types (hybrid and carrier based) with regards to Independent Squadrons.

I get that folks feel like this is so (I do too) but is there an enabling or restrictive rule, I have missed? If not then I would request a ruling made over in the Q&A and note added one way or the other when we redo the basic rules set.

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Wednesday, January 25, 2023 - 10:36 pm: Edit

Personally, I view "(not necessarily from the same ship)" as the enabling rule, with "Hydran hybrid ships can send their fighters forward in this manner". The bit about them counting against the limit is opposed to the normal operation of hybrid fighter factors.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, January 26, 2023 - 12:17 am: Edit

Patrick,

Up the SBX to a SFX.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Monday, February 13, 2023 - 03:02 pm: Edit

The way Rule 435.22 (Transfer of Funds) is written, it assumes that the empire sending the economic points will be providing the tug to move them. However, am I correct that Rule 435.221 means that the receiving empire also has the option to use one of its own tugs to pick them up if the sending empire is short of tugs?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, February 13, 2023 - 03:15 pm: Edit

The receiving empire can generally go pick them up; it does not matter if the sending empire is short of tugs or not.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Wednesday, February 15, 2023 - 06:17 pm: Edit

Rule 511.573 says that in a capital assault crippled ships can be attacked by directed damage if the planet they are assigned to is attacked, even if they are not part of the battle force. Is this directed damage attack at a single ship or is it at the cripples collectively, the same way it is in a pursuit battle?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, February 15, 2023 - 08:48 pm: Edit

It's not a pursuit battle. Nothing special other than the ability to destroy a single cripple not in the battle force with your one directed damage attack.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, February 16, 2023 - 05:12 am: Edit

511.573 applies to battle rounds at any planet in the capital hex where there are crippled ship(s) from a previous battle round. It is your one allowed directed damage attack. However, if there is a valuable crippled ship that you want to kill before leaving in a capital planet raid it may be worth considering.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Saturday, February 18, 2023 - 09:41 am: Edit

I have a pinning question. Suppose the Kzintis have a fleet in their capital hex, the Klingons have a fleet in hex 1402, and the Lyrans have a fleet on the planet in 1202.

If the Kzintis move ships to 1301, the Klingons cannot react because this is movement away from them. The Lyrans (who have a scout) could react, but choose not to. The Kzintis then move to 1201. The Klingons now react to 1302. The Lyrans also react into 1201, but do not have enough ships to pin the entire force.

If the unpinned Kzintis continue moving to 1101, can the Klingons still react to 1201 to join the Lyrans and pinned Kzintis? I know that if the Kzintis had stopped in hex 1201 voluntarily the Klingons could have reacted to that hex, but I wasn't sure if the involuntary stoppage due to pinning created the same result.