HERE IS THE CURRENT SITUATION:
A defending player has to resolve 16 points of damage and chooses to take it on their undefended BTS. They choose 2 SIDS steps (resolving 4 x 2 = 8 Damage Points) and then 6 fighters (resolving 6 more) leaving 2 Damage Points to resolve.

This has come up in Q&A a couple of times, but not quite in the same way, and when you read down below you will find a slightly circular decision was made. I suggest a slight clarification once a definitive answer is given.

Pro: The rules seem to indicate the defender does INDEED have to take the 3rd SIDS as
- Rule (302.61) seems to require a player to resolve damage that meets the 'half or more' limits of damage points remaining.
- Rule (308.84) calls the SIDS out as voluntary and goes on to give the example at the end of (308.84) which does point out that taking the SIDS chnages the way a base is viewed in terms of defensive strength remaining. As such a BTS with 2 SIDS steps already taken, would be viewed as hving a BTS defensive strength of 12 - 8 = 4.


Against: The rules seem to indicate the defender does NOT have to take the 3rd SIDS as
- Rule (302.615) seems to disallow bases from generating minus points when the damage is not enough to cripple the base.
The question, and answer needed for clarity, is: "Does this extend to SIDS as taking the third would indeed generate minus points from crippling the base (not the fighters as they were already lost)?"
- Rule (302.61 and 308.112) does lead a player in what to do with Damage Points that cannot produce minus points and that are not enough cripple the base, they are ignored and stack up as 'plus points' for the attacker to be used on the next round.


Rules for Reference:
(302.61) ORDER OF RESOLUTION: The owning player selects which of his units will be crippled or destroyed to satisfy the Damage Points scored by his opponent. He may select these units in any order, but selects them one at a time. When the remaining number of unresolved Damage Points is less than half of the the smallest defense factor of the remaining units in the Battle Force, these damage points may be ignored. If the remaining unresolved Damage Points are equal to half or more of the smallest defense factor of the remaining units, the owning player must damage a unit (cripple a unit or destroy a crippled unit) even if in doing so he gives up more defense factors than the other player has remaining unresolved Damage Points (it need not be the smallest unit).

(302.615) A base cannot be crippled if this would produce minus points, but must instead take a SIDS step. Note, however, that voluntary SIDS steps such as this resolve 4.5 points of damage on a starbase, not the nine points of a directed-damage SIDS attack (308.8). Voluntary SIDS on other types of bases resolve various numbers of points (e.g., four for a BATS) as defined in the rules.

(308.812) The attacking player is never required to use SIDS, and could instead allow the Defender to score the points on ships defending the base. If there are no ships or other units, then the Attacker could continue to add up "plus points" (308.2) until he had enough to cripple the base or the owner could take a voluntary SIDS step, resolving 4.5 points.

(308.84) VOLUNTARY: The owner of the starbase (or X-starbase) can voluntarily take a SIDS step to resolve Damage Points scored against his force, but voluntary SIDS steps resolve 4.5 points of damage rather than the eighteen points if scored by Directed Damage. If the defender voluntarily crippled or destroys the Starbase, he must deduct 4.5 from its combat value for each SIDS scored on it. When calculating the damage resolved, round any fractions down. One SIDS step would resolve four points, three would resolve thirteen. A Defender may score more than one voluntary SIDS step on his base in a given combat round.


Years ago we had an almost clarification that may have missed the opportunity in 2010 for an update.

This is the older Q&A from 2003

FIRST HERE IS THE HISTORICAL REFERENCE:
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 01:00 am: Edit

308.8, SIDS:
If a BATS has 2 SIDS steps and 3 fighters left, the enemy does 7 points of damage is the defender required to:
A. destroy 3 fighters and the attacker is at +4?
or
B. Defender has to loose 3 fighters and take the 3rd SIDS to cripple the BATS?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THEN NICK GAVE AN ANSWER
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Tim: I don't think you can be forced to voluntarily take the SIDS step like that (except under (302.615) which is not the same as this), the plus points would accumulate until you got to 6, then the defender must cripple the base, resolving four points. I cannot find anything that forces you to use the last crippling SIDS step, and the only other rule is that which requries crippling when 1/2 of the defense factor is reached.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THEN STAFF (STEW FRAZIER) CHIMED IN
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 01:16 am: Edit

Nick, I think that in the situation describe (BATS with 2 SIDS and 3 fighters, 7 unresolved damage points) the defender is forced to damage something. Although the attacker can't force the issue (as he still sees it as a 12 DF unit as per (308.64)), I believe that the Defender sees it as only a 4 DF unit due to the previous SIDS (also (308.64)). Note that unless the damage is resolved against the fighters first, the 50% rule kicks in and (302.615) forces it to take the last SIDS (resolving 4 points leaving a crippled BATS with 3 factors and 3 damage to resolve).

I think the intent of (308.84) forces the Defender to take SIDs steps until damage is resolved...but this needs to be bounced up to Jeff (and SVC) for clairification.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THEN JEFF LAIKLAND GAVE AN ANSWER
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 01:30 am: Edit

Nick et al,

SIDS: I would have to agree that the defender uses the remaining SIDS value to determine whether or not the 50% level is reached, except that (302.615) still applies.

If a BATS has had two SIDS inflicted, it will have to be crippled if the attacker causes 4 points of damage. It won't have to be crippled if only 3 points were scored, as doing so would create minus points (302.615).

Kevin's comments about SBs soaking up an amazing amount of damage are quite to the point.

Interpretation: Although a bit circular, Jeff L. seems to side with the idea that crippling a base cannot generate minus points and as such would need the full 4 points (not 3, and likely not 2) to score that crippling SIDS step. I would like to verify this (now, although we moved on in our game) and push for this to be spelled out definitively in the rule(s) when Basic Set is addressed in the future.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Tuesday, April 04, 2023 - 10:38 pm: Edit

I feel like making a prediction here, we'll see if I get it right when the official response comes in:

I think 302.615 is worded the way it is to prevent a defender from taking damage in an order where they leave 6 or 7 points left, and instead of losing a ship or fighters (1:1 compot loss per damage) they flip the BATS losing the same 6 compot but then the attacker has a ton of - points to deal with.

But taking it in order, you can't do that (cripple the base) so instead you must take SIDS. Since 2 damage is half a SIDS, you take it, and yes, that does cripple the base and produce 2 minus points, but technically you didn't cripple the base, you resolved a SIDS which then happened to cripple the base. This limits the "minus point abuse" potential to 2.

TL;DR: 16 points to an undefended BATS has 2 possible outcomes, depending on the order the defender resolves the damage:
1) Crippled BATS, no fighters, 2 minus points
2) Crippled BATS, 2 fighters

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, April 04, 2023 - 11:44 pm: Edit

Pretty sure the rule preventing crippling a base to get minus points was pre-SIDS. If using SIDS, you just ignore that and have to cripple the base in the above example. Put it down to a case of bad wording on updated and newer rules.

By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Wednesday, April 12, 2023 - 10:37 am: Edit

There was some discussion of the F&E Crackbook group about the interaction between maulers and SFGs. I was hoping to get some clarification.

---

Quote:

(312.212) The frozen ship can be attacked by directed damage
at full effect (rather than half effect) and loses all other directed
damage benefits (such as being a carrier escort). All frozen ships
can be attacked by directed damage; these collective attacks
count as the one allowed attack by that method per round.

---

---

Quote:

(312.41) MAULER INTERACTION: Mauler and SFG effects are
cumulative, effectively allowing a mauler to score two points of
damage for each actual damage point, up to the limit of its attack
factor. [See also (312.261) for the interaction of the requirements
for accompanying ships. Note that (308.44) is still in force, limiting one mauler attack per round.]
EXAMPLE: A Klingon D5A freezes a Kzinti DN (no formation bonus), and an MD5 is available to fire. It would normally
take 24 damage points to cripple the DN (36 to destroy it outright), but because it has been frozen, this is reduced to 12 (and
18 to destroy it). The availability of the seven-point MD5 mauler,
however, makes it possible to score (effectively) 14 points from
the MD5 alone (using seven actual points), enough to cripple the
DN and (with four points from other ships) destroy it outright (using only 11 total damage points).

---

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Wednesday, April 12, 2023 - 11:12 am: Edit

Short answer: Yes, you can damage any frozen units 1:2 up to the mauler's rating

You are allowed 1 DD attack per combat round

You may use a mauler and it is more efficient, up to the mauler's rating

You can use SFGs to make DD attacks more efficient, and have more than one enemy ship collectively attacked as your one DD attack that round

Mauler and SFG effects are cumulative

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, April 14, 2023 - 03:38 pm: Edit

(450.19) ANNEX: Available ships:

Empire	FF	DW	CW
Klingon	E4 or F5	F5L or F5W	D5

In the case of “or” choices, the Klingons and Romulans must specify which type the shipyard is for.

(450.191) A DW shipyard can produce ships from the FF shipyard column. A CW shipyard can produce ships from the FF or DW shipyard columns.

Q. Does this mean only the F5W choice of MSY for the Klingons will be able to produce a FF OR can the F5L choice (not a DW) also make this downward substitution?

By Warren Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, May 13, 2023 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Q632.52 On what turn do the Kzinti Baron's, Lyran Far Stars and Hydran Old Colonies Fleets arrive?

Under (601.2) The Kzinti Baron's and Lyran Far Stars Fleets arrive on Turn 2. While the Hydran Old Colonies Fleet isn't released until a specific event occurs undre (709.11).

Answer needed before start of Stratcon.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 13, 2023 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Baron's and Far Star's arrive on turn two, as you said.

The Hydran OC does not arrive on a specific turn, but instead it activates if a Hydran starbase is destroyed or if the Coalition enter the capital hex. It does not 'arrive' in the way the other fleets mentioned do, ie it does not have to use strategic movement to arrive on the map, but can enter the map by op movement (or reserve movement).


These fleets can also be activated if the empire's capital planet is devastated (which activates all of an empire's inactive fleets).

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, May 17, 2023 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Q540.23 Can diplomatic income received under (540.23) be transferred to another empire while you are still at peace? Both (540.22) and (540.23) allow a currently neutral empire to spend their diplomatic income under these rules at the owner's discretion, but we have a question about whether that would include transferring the funds, or possibly using those points to trade with the WYN cluster. Neither are specifically spending, but are certainly options an empire (or its diplomatic corps) might consider.


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


FEDS RULINGS


A. TRANSFERS OF DIPLOMATIC INCOME:
While the general rule (540.23) allows the diplomatic income to be spent at the owner’s discretion, the more specific rule (435.11) does not permit transfers because both empires MUST be at War (including Limited War) and have become allies or cobelligerents. Unless overruled by ADB, diplomatic income received under (540.23) and (540.22) CANNOT be transferred to another empire until both empires are at War (including Limited War) and have become allies or cobelligerents.


B. WYN TRADE USING DIPLOMATIC INCOME - NO RULING REQUIRED:
(449.11) TRADE RIGHTS: The Lyrans, Klingons, and Kzintis have a “trade right” with the WYN Star Cluster starting on Turn #1 and during the entire game (whether at war or not).


References:

---

Quote:

(540.23) Any EPs generated under this rule in peacetime could be spent at the owner’s discretion.

(435.11) MAXIMUM: Any empire can transfer up to twenty Economic Points per turn to each allied empire provided only that both are at War (including Limited War) and have become allies or cobelligerents.

---

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 17, 2023 - 09:45 pm: Edit

I think transferring funds is only done between allies. I think any income you got from WYN trade, assuming it's allowed somehow would no longer be diplomatic income and be unspendable.

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, July 02, 2023 - 03:42 pm: Edit

For the Eye of the Storm scenario, it says:

"Note: Romulans start the regular game on a wartime
economy and can’t expand the production lines any faster."

Am I to understand that this means the Romulans cannot build minor shipyards?

If that's what it means, what about in the event the game reaches 173+, when the Romulnas normally have full control over their production? It would seem that they should be as normal in this instance at least.

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, July 02, 2023 - 03:44 pm: Edit

Also in the Eye of the Storm scenario, there is this:

"WE/KE is a free conversion but takes a major conversion
slot and must be done at one of the capital hexes."

I'm puzzled by this, as it's not normally the case.

Again, what happens if the game reaches 173+, when the Romulnas normally have full control over their production?

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, July 02, 2023 - 03:48 pm: Edit

Another question

(632.52) says "The Romulans do get the “pre-war” deliveries of Klingon ships"

The build schedule shows 6xK4 Y169S and Y169F. Presumably theses are part of the Klingon deliveries, but being shown on production (without being marked as deliveries), it made me wonder if these are additional ships that the Roms can build, or if these are the "free" deliveries, or if the Roms have to pay for these (they don't normally)

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, July 02, 2023 - 07:41 pm: Edit

I see no reason why they couldn't build yards when they are available. The note is for the main shipyard.

The prewar WE/KE conversions are a major conversion and paid in the background in the regular game. The Romulans have full control of their schedule. You can build any variant of the ship on the schedule. Just like in Y173+ where the scenario says "use the published schedule".

I would say they'd have to pay a 1pt activation cost (which I think is less than the conversion cost) since these are Klingon mothballed ships. (Not accounted for in Klingon mothball fleet) I'd also say you'd have to be able to trace a supply path from Klingon to Romulan space (easy if you have the Tholians on your side).

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, July 05, 2023 - 05:29 pm: Edit

Ted Fay and I have different interpretations of the following rules:

(600.313) The ships of an unreleased fleet can move (operationally) within their deployment area, but no more than six ships can
be moved on any given turn.
(600.314) [omitted and not relevant here]
(600.315) Ships in unreleased fleets can use Strategic Movement inside the fleet’s deployment zone or for (600.32); this counts
against the empire’s overall limit.

The question is how to interpret the phrase "the empire's overall limit" in 600.315.

Interpretation A: "the empire's overall limit" refers to the limit of six ships per fleet per turn. An unreleased fleet is limited to moving a total of six ships in op move and strat move combined.

Interpretation B: "the empire's overall limit" refers to the overall strategic move limit of the empire. An unreleased fleet can move six ships during op move and any number of additional ships during strat move, subject to their overall strat move limit.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Wednesday, July 05, 2023 - 05:43 pm: Edit

I read it as neither A nor B;

The "this counts against the empire's overall limit" is only referring to the empire's ship count limit for strategic movement, and does not refer *at all* to the limit of movement of unreleased fleet elements.

i.e. in an unreleased fleet, a maximum of 6 ships can be moved, whether via Operational -or- Strategic movement. What the above quote refers to is that any strategic movement of the unreleased ships counts toward the entire empire's Strategic movement limit.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Wednesday, July 05, 2023 - 08:44 pm: Edit

I have always played as if Interpretation B prevailed.

600.313 would need to say: The ships of an unreleased fleet can move (operationally or strategically) in order for Interpretation A to prevail.

--Mike

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, July 06, 2023 - 03:02 am: Edit

Up to six ships of an unreleased fleet can be moved by strategic movement. This is not free strategic movement unless you can find an explicit rule stating it is (which you can't as far as I know).

Not being free, it is also limited by the overall limit on strategic movement. If the limit is less than six, then you cannot move six by strategic movement but could move the remaining ships by operational movement (earlier in the turn).

For example, the LDR have a strategic movement limit of two if I recall correctly, so only two ships could be moved by strategic movement in an unreleased fleet.

You could of course purchase extra strategic movement with the limits of that.

By Warren Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, July 06, 2023 - 06:44 am: Edit

Richard, the six ships of an unreleased fleet moved by strategic movement would count against a given empire's limit on strategic movement for ships that otherwise don't qualify for free strategic movement under (204.31) otherwise you have to pay 1 EP for each ship moved under (204.35) if not covered by (204.30).

(204.30) MAXIMUM: Each of the major empires can move a maximum of ten units (fifteen for the Federation and Klingons, five for the Tholians) by Strategic Movement during the Strategic Movement Phase of his Player Turn.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 06, 2023 - 10:47 am: Edit

I agree with Richard and Warren's interpretations. It's a both-and situation.

You can move 6 unreleased ships a turn within their deployment area. Up to you whether that's 6 via operational or 6 via strat or some combination thereof.

If you use strat to move an unreleased ship, that counts against your overall strategic movement limits.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, July 12, 2023 - 11:41 am: Edit

Q 632.22

EXPEDITED RESPONSE REQUESTED (This affects the scenario being played at StratCon).

632.22 states, in relevant part, "Once a capital is devastated, that
empire can no longer build ships (other than at starbases and
minor shipyards) but does remain in the game."

Question 1: Is the use of the word "devastated" intended, or should it be "captured?"

Question 2: If "devastated" is intended, does this mean devastating only the capital/shipyard PLANET, or all planets in the capital/shipyard HEX?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, July 12, 2023 - 02:33 pm: Edit

This is not an official ruling since I am a party to this case.

A1: Devastated not captured.

A2: ALL planets in the capital hex must be DEVASTATED. I would also note that the rule only state the SHIPS cannot be built, so since these are special scenario rules, other non-ship units can be still be built (PDUs, FRDs, MBs, Auxes, free fighters, PFs, support personnel). However, if the capital is CAPTURED, then those rules for capturing a capital apply.

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Wednesday, July 12, 2023 - 03:44 pm: Edit

I concur with Chuck's interpretation.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 12, 2023 - 04:58 pm: Edit

I concur.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, July 12, 2023 - 11:52 pm: Edit

I am fine at this point in advance of the actual play test...however I feel like retention of Shipyard capabilities like free fighters and other builds might be too much.

As it is tearing down say the smaller empires will unlikely see a big drop in counts as they can just sub their entire schedule at SB's

Gorn in particular could sub a DD for everything and turn them all into BDs at that same SB (no loss in Ship counts only a fall off in quality, but even that is nullified if they also retain their capital SB and Major Conversion capacity. Upscaling a smaller ship into a Capital ship or fleet carrier is still possible.