Benjamin - not an offical answer but must be a 'yes', as otherwise it could Op move (even though it isn't physcially moving, it is using up MPs, so clearly counts as moving) and Reserve Fleet move - which ships can't do.

If you want the ship to be reserve fleet eligible - do the normal conversion on it (525.222 for HDW's for example).

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Thursday, October 19, 2023 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Hey, there!

Can somebody give me a hint to the rule that explained, what happened to the klingon bases inside vudar territory after they took over?

I know I read somewhere about it, but fail to find the rule reference in the Vudar section or the neutral empires rules (503.0).

I am setting up some smaller scenarios for the new vassal module and the vudar seem to have no bases outside their capital except 3 or four colonies with PDUs.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Thursday, October 19, 2023 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Addendum:
547.111 The last sentence mentions a player option regarding the former Klingon based but it does not sound like a definite answer regarding their absence in the vudar scenarios in Minor Empires.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Benjamin Lee Johnson (Jedipilot24) on Thursday, October 19, 2023 - 03:31 pm: Edit

From Minor Empires:

(547.111) Concession: Each turn, before any other action, the
Vudar take over the scheduled provinces. Any units in that province
must immediately retreat out of the province (to a hex adjacent
to it) or they will be interned. Any units incapable of retreating
out of the province are interned. At the option of the opposing
player, any bases within these provinces can be ceded to the
Vudar under (448.1) or the opposing player may scrap the base
under (448.16). Bases lost to the Vudar do not count for General
War victory conditions.

Based on the Vudar OOB for "Static Fog", "Freak Storm" and "Electric Storm" I would assume that the Klingons scrapped their bases rather than let them be taken over by the Vudar.

(629.226) Destroyed Bases: As a result of the prior conflicts, all
former Klingon and Hydran bases within Vudar space are destroyed
as well as all bases (including PDUs) adjacent to all neutral
zones bordering the Klingon and Hydran empires except Klingon
bases in hexes 0908, 1009, 1010, and 1011. All former Tholian
bases are destroyed. The Hydran starbases at 0215 and
0716 are destroyed

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Friday, October 20, 2023 - 01:35 am: Edit

Thanks, Benjamin!

I clearly overlooked the second rule you mention as Freak Storm is yet on my list to be set up.

It seems to indeed indicate that the Vudar have no other bases than stated in the scenario rules yet it is a scenario specific rule for (629.0).

What got me confused was that who ever set up Winds of Fire for Vassal replaced the Klingon bases with Vudar bases in their territory, yet the specific rules in the updated Winds of Fire are silent on the bases status. Maybe because that was before Minor Empires and the scnearios update and Vudar territory was off limits that time.

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Friday, October 20, 2023 - 01:50 am: Edit

I'd like to rephrase my question after Benjamins hint regarding the former Klingon bases in Vudar territory:

Rule (547.111) gives players the option of ceding the bases to the Vudar or scraping them.
Yet the scenario specific rules mention them to be destroyed (629.226, thx Benjamin) or don't mention them at all(setup rules for Electric Storm, Static Fog and Winds of Fire).

Question: Is this a case where specific rules trump general rules and the bases are simply not there 'cause of the specific scenario setups as Benjamin indicated?

Follow-up Question: If so, would the general rule (547.111) simply be ignored then or would it be considered as some kind of balance option in favor of the Vudar player?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Friday, November 03, 2023 - 01:15 pm: Edit

Chuck, Ryan!
You might know the answer to this:

I'm in the process of setting up the upgraded scenarios Gale Force and Maelstrom for Vassal.

After finishing the Gale Force map I started the Malestrom map based on the first and found this situation:

Sector E disposition: In both upgraded modules (SO and FO) it is the same disposition including the Gorn BATS (4505) still being in process of upgrade in the Maelstrom scenario although it began 5 turns earlier in Gale Force.

Should that be the case?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Friday, November 03, 2023 - 10:14 pm: Edit

It went boom and it's being rebuilt again.

Ryan

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Saturday, November 04, 2023 - 01:49 am: Edit

Thanks, Ryan!

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Saturday, November 04, 2023 - 06:34 am: Edit

Chuck, Ryan!

A follow-up question regarding the occupationstatus of the neutral zones around the Tholian territory:

Maelstrom scenario (675.D22):
The text says only neutral zones 1913 to 2415 are captured by the Klingons.
Yet the following table with the occupation stati also lists the neutral zones adjacent to Tholian territory under klingon control.

Likewise the NZ hexes between the Romulans and the Tholians:
(675.D43) lists them as unoccupied and the text in (675.E22) likewise says the Romulans only control the NZ hexes east of 3316. Yet the table with the occupation stati in (675.E22) list them under romulan control.

I guess the tables are in error and the text is correct, right?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Sunday, November 05, 2023 - 05:05 am: Edit

Questions regarding (617.B21)

Planet 1802 ist mentioned two times in the Kzinti disposition. One being recaptured on turn #20 and one at #24.
Am I guessing right that the one recaptured on turn #24 is a typo and actually ment to be planet 1202?

The two provinces 1503 and 1702 are actually one and the same province.
Is 1503 a typo and meant to be province 1504 or 1505? That would concur with the fact that the Kzinti have captured the planet 1504 and set up an MB in 1605 in said province.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Benjamin Lee Johnson (Jedipilot24) on Sunday, November 05, 2023 - 07:44 am: Edit

Question regarding (617.F22)

The Romulan BATS in 4710 is mentioned as destroyed and then the very next sentence says "The Romulan BATS at 4710 has been upgraded to a sector base."

Is this a typo meant to refer to BATS 4310 (which is still intact)?

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Sunday, November 05, 2023 - 09:44 am: Edit

Benjamin,
good catch.

My theory:
4710 was indeed upgraded to an STB and BATS 4310 (in the territory captured and held by the Gorn in Gale Force and Maelstrom) is meant to be still destroyed.

Reasoning:
According to the existing older Winds of Fire set up 4710 is an SB and (617.F22) from the updated AO says the NZs surrounding base 4710 are captured by the Romulans.
4310 is a base next Gorn captured territory and would be reasonably assumed to still destroyed.

As I am in the middle of setting up the vassal board for Winds of Fire I am eager to hear the official ruling.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Sunday, November 05, 2023 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Question regarding (617.F43)

Operation Remus Forces during the WInds of Fire scenario:

Are the ships for Operation Remus set up in addition to the primary forces of the Federation, Gorn and Kzinti or are they included their sector OOBs and the play has to set them aside for Operation Remus (like the PTs mentioned in (671.561)?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Sunday, November 05, 2023 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Op Remus Forces are seperate from the Sector Forces. They are additional forces gathered by the Alliance for this offensive.

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Sunday, November 05, 2023 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Thanks, Ryan.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein

By Soeren Klein (Ogdrklein) on Sunday, December 03, 2023 - 05:39 am: Edit

Answer/Ruling requested:
Hi, there! These questions have been posted some weeks ago, but have remained unanswered.
As they involve some contradictions within the mentioned rules texts I'd like to renew these questions and respectfully asked for an official ruling/answer on these matters.


Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein



A) Question regarding (675.D22): Neutral zones between Klingon and Tholian territory
The text says only NZs 1913 to 2415 are captured by the Klingons.
According to the following table all the NZ to Tholian territory are under Klingon control.

Which one is correct?


B) Question regarding (675.E22): Neutral zones between Tholian and Romulan territory
(675.E22) Text says only NZs east of 3316 are under Romulan control, but the following table lists them all under Romulan control.
(675.D42) concurs with the text.
Is the table in error?


C) 2 Questions regarding (617.B21): Kzinti controlled provinces and planets

Planet 1802 ist mentioned two times in the Kzinti disposition. One being recaptured on turn #20 and one at #24.
Am I guessing right that the one recaptured on turn #24 is a typo and actually ment to be planet 1202?

The two provinces 1503 and 1702 are actually one and the same province.
Is 1503 a typo and meant to be province 1504 or 1505? That would concur with the fact that the Kzinti have captured the planet 1504 and set up an MB in 1605 in said province.


D) Question regarding (617.F22) by Benjamin Lee Johnson:

The Romulan BATS in 4710 is mentioned as destroyed and then the very next sentence says "The Romulan BATS at 4710 has been upgraded to a sector base."

Is this a typo meant to refer to BATS 4310 (which is still intact)?

My theory (Soeren Klein):
4710 was indeed upgraded to an STB and BATS 4310 (in the territory captured and held by the Gorn in Gale Force and Maelstrom) is meant to be still destroyed.

Reasoning:
According to the existing older Winds of Fire set up 4710 is an SB and (617.F22) from the updated AO says the NZs surrounding base 4710 are captured by the Romulans.
4310 is a base next to Gorn captured territory and would be reasonably assumed to be still destroyed.

What is the correct answer?

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, December 03, 2023 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Under the pursuit rules in 302 the pursuer is required to roll for success in order to pursue the retreating force.

Under slow unit retreats, the pursuing force is considered a non-pursuit battle force for purposes of formation

The question: Is the pursuer required to achieve pursuit success in order to chase down, retreating slow units? Please quote the rule for captains log ruling where I may find the answer.

This question comes up because it seems to be an odd situation for pursuer do not have to roll or I suppose a case could be made non-pursuit formed battle pours, meets the requirement automatically, because it is more than six ships. Either way, a ruling clarification would be nice so it can be included with the basic set revision.

By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Monday, December 04, 2023 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Question regarding 302.36 in conjunction with 302.32. If a player has four ships in a hex, two should have to be included per 302.36, but per a tactics article in CL26, as there are three flagship candidates, the two unselected flagship candidates would be excluded, and only one ship would need to be in the battle line. My challenge with this is evinced in Example #2 under 602.36, which explicitly states that seven of the fourteen Federation ships have to be in the battle line. If he could exclude the flagship candidates, only 6 would have to be in the line.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, December 13, 2023 - 01:36 pm: Edit

FEAR/FEDS

SAFs : Entering a battle hex:
The rules for SAF say SAFs may be escorted (ala a Convoy) with 1-2 escorts. However they also say an SAF cannot be escorted when its being used in its combat function. What they do not say (at least in that section) if they are allowed to drop escorts in order to go into combat.

Q) If an attacking player going into battle assigns Escorts to their SAFs for protection. Can the player (during the battle) choose to drop the escorts in order to use the SAF to attack a system in that battle hex? Or is the player stuck (telegraphing their intent)?

Situation:
I have 5 SAF over the Kzinti Capital but may only stay 2-3 rounds due to lack of maulers and other support units. Spelling out possible options (which include why my Q):

1. Escort all SAFs and then drop escorts for the SAF I intend to use in combat.
2. Escort all of the SAFs and leave.
3. Escort some of the SAFs guessing how many rounds I will wish to fight using an SAF in combat.
4. Escort none of the SAFs and just go for it.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, December 14, 2023 - 03:10 am: Edit

Lawrence - not a FEAR answer - but I beleive the SAF's only get to be escortd (like a Convoy) if enemy units enter the hex where they are and the SAF's are 'defending'.

If the SAF's are attacking - they can't be escorted.

By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Thursday, December 14, 2023 - 11:23 am: Edit

Also not FEAR, but according to the SoP

5-3D: Secretly assign and establish:
• Carrier (515.14) and other escort groups (515.43). These
cannot be changed until 5-8 (Pursuit Phase) (307.0);
exception: eligible groups may add emergency escorts
(526.353) during subsequent rounds

so there is no rule allowing escorts to be dropped mid-way through the combat to allow the SAF to conduct an assault.

As Paul stated above, SAFs can only be escorted when they are defending (at least that's what is indicated by (520.54).

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, January 23, 2024 - 02:19 am: Edit

Would a NZ that has signed a Diplomatic agreement under rule (540.253) to join an empire be "locked in" unable for further negotiations by a state of Limited War? Rule (540.254) says "(This cannot be done after the two empires are at war with each other;..."

Situation Fed diplomats have had success at Sherman's planet in the NZ and it has declared for the Feds (since T2 of the GW). On T7, The Klingon Empire did NOT declare war on the Federation but did attack the Marquis starbase. The Federation is now at Limited War in support of the Kzinti against the Coalition. Can the Klingon Diplomat still make an attempt to flip the planet back to Neutral Status on T8 (still no war is declared byt the Klingons on the Feds) or is it now too late?

There is a debate since the Klingons did not declare war and are not at war with the Federation and entering the NZ which still technically exists would first require the Klingon ship to consider internment.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, January 23, 2024 - 11:14 am: Edit

Q541.31 (Combat Engineer) in view of 433.3 (Fighter Storage Depots (FSDs)). The question is whether a combat engineer can reduce the cost of an FSD.

541.31 provides that any fighters or PFs for constructed or upgraded bases must still be paid for separately from the discounted construction cost of the modules or upgraded bases. However, rule 433.3 states that FSDs only cost "6 EPs" and does not mention that the FSD is bought as purchased fighters, as such.

Note that rule 441.411 provides that fighter modules cost 1 economic point, plus 3 points for fighters. Likewise, rule 432.23 states that planetary defense units (PDUs) cost 0.5 economic point per fighter factor, plus the cost of of the unit itself.

Thus, it appears that there is a distinction between FSDs and base modules or PDUs. While base modules or PDUs explicitly must pay for fighters, FSDs only cost 6 EPs - with no mention of fighter cost.

Therefore, the question is, may a combat engineer operating outside of a capital use its capabilities under 541.31 to reduce the cost of a FSD from 6 EPs to 1 EP? The theory here is that the FSD costs 6 EPs and you are not directly buying fighters, as such, and so the 541.31 prohibition does not apply.

Ruling respectfully requested.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, January 31, 2024 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Q1: Under rule (539.132) and (539.232) can the Romulan APTs and PTRs be sent to the Klingons T1 to help with transporting EPs between the Klingon and Lyran capitals on T2 forward?

I am assuming that the small transports being always released, use allies SMN for free, along with the above rules might well allow it.

Q2: Also I assume if the above is true, they could also adopt a mission to instead, transfer the Trade Money earned by DIP treaty income (just having the DIPs in the capitals) as the rule mentions "delivering a Gift" could also start on T2 (sending this Rom money to their allies on T2), right?