Lar:

See FO2016, pg62

---

Quote:

(711.0) LYRAN STAR EMPIRE

Records are unclear if the HFF and HDD ships remained in service in the General War. A Lyran player may, if he wants, substitute one or two HFFs for FFs and/or one or two HDDs for DDs, but further production isn’t allowed (or efficient) and the HFF and HDD cannot be converted into anything else. A few of these are listed in (608.0) but can be replaced with DDs and FFs.

The BCE and DNE ships were no longer in service but a Lyran player might substitute them for existing BCs and DNs (respectively) just for variety.

---

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, January 31, 2024 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Thanks Chuck for answering this this. I will point out there may be a need to note in Scenario 607.0 The Four Powers War about these Lyran Ships and any restrictions or limitations. Nothing is mentioned and they are available for that war. I can move this commentary over to FO (future updates). Glad it will at least get on the 168 Lyran OOB.

Specifically they are left out of the available Substitution schedule as follows:
(607.585) Lyran Schedule
Spring Turns Y158-Y162: DNE, CA, 2xCL, 2xDD, 2xFF.
Fall Turns Y158-Y162: BCE, CA, 2xCL, 2xDD, 2xFF.
May substitute CA for DNE.
May substitute CL for BCE.

-L Bergen 31 JAN 2024

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, February 03, 2024 - 10:18 pm: Edit

Ruling confirmation requested please:

AO Rule -(441.433) An FRD can carry a maximum of two modules, with no more than one of them being a PF module. (The published counters show no fighter or PF modules; these can be added to the maximum above.) Fighters and PFs based on an FRD are considered as fighters on a base for purposes of the three-squad- ron limit (302.332), but no more than one FRD can operate fighters (or use them to absorb losses) in battle force during any combat round. The addition of such modules does not affect the movement of the FRD. An FRD with such modules is treated as a base, not a carrier. The PFs and fighters cannot react out of the hex of the FRD.

Situation: Opponent is saying it should be one full squadron of fighters alllowed in the battle so if there are two FRDs (both req to be included and each has just one module with 3 Ftrs) he should be able to add both 1/2 squadrons (6 ftrs).

The limit presented here though is ‘one FRD with a module’ can add its fighters to the group. I am suggesting it’s the FRD with the module that’s the limiting factor per the rule, not the number of fighters (or one squadron). Note: Highlighted area above in blue that I am referring to.

L Bergen 3 FEB 2024

By Paul Shutter (Cusimanse) on Saturday, February 10, 2024 - 05:42 pm: Edit

A question came up about placing a Mobile Base last night. Can a MB be set up if the ship is not in supply at the start of construction?

Example: Lyrans strat moved (using two of the Klingon strat moves) two tugs carrying MBs, one to the BATS at 1214 (6 hexes from 0810), and a second to the BATS at 1813. Can the MB in 1813 be set up right away? I couldn't find anything specifying that the tug has to be in supply when setting it up, but it was in supply up to the point where it got further than 6 from a Lyran base, so it couldn't have been declared homeless.

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


FEDS Reply:

There is no requirement that a MB be in supply at the time of set up. The MB rules (510.113) do state the a MB that is out-of-supply does not provide supplies and is out of supply if
not connected to a Supply Grid. This may very well explain how a a MB could be deploy remotely and then an expeditionary force could be created and sent around it later.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, February 23, 2024 - 04:12 pm: Edit

I am not sure where this question and ultimate resolution reference should go (AO or PO or both).

In AO under (523.3) X-ships have a mauler effect.
In AO Under (523.414) X-bases do not have this effect.

Under PO rule (322.22) Tholian X-ships (of the same type) may form a Pinwheel.
Under PO rule (322.31) The Pinwheel is treated as a base.

Question: Does the formation of a Pinwheel mean that the three Tholian X-ships involved lose their Mauler Effect?

(I note that the presence of other X-ships could provide the force with this benefit but I am asking as if these three are the only X-ships involved.)

==============
RULING:

Confirmed by ADB, Tholian X-ships that form a pinwheel are treated as a base (322.31) and as a result, lose their ability X-ship mauler effect capability (523.414) while formed as a pinwheel.

FEDS SENDS

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, February 23, 2024 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Similarly I have this question...

In AO under (523.32) X-ships have an attrition effect of one per uncrippled X-ship (limit of 6).
In AO Under (523.414) X-bases do still have this attrition effect but seem to count as one unit.

Under PO rule (322.22) Tholian X-ships (of the same type) may form a Pinwheel.
Under PO rule (322.31) The Pinwheel is treated as a base.

Question: Does the formation of a Pinwheel mean that the three Tholian X-ships involved have a reduced Attrition Effect on only one attrition unit? Or do they retain this capability as three individual X-ships?

(I note that the presence of other X-ships could provide the force with additional benefits but I am asking as if these three are the only X-ships involved.)
==============
RULING:

Confirmed by ADB, Tholian X-ships that form a pinwheel are treated as a base (322.31) and as a result, the PW is counted as a single X-base for attrition unit reduction effects under (523.414).

FEDS SENDS

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, February 23, 2024 - 04:25 pm: Edit

And while I am at it...

In AO under (523.38) X-ships have an electronic warfare effect of reducing an enemies EW points by 0.5 EW points for each X-ship (rounded up at the end and a max reduction of of -3.0 EW).
In AO Under (523.414) X-bases do still have this attrition effect but seem to count as one X-unit (or -0.5 of the enemy EW).

Under PO rule (322.22) Tholian X-ships (of the same type) may form a Pinwheel.
Under PO rule (322.31) The Pinwheel is treated as a base.

Question: Does the formation of a Pinwheel mean that the three Tholian X-ships involved have a reduced EW Effect against the enemy counting a only -0.5 EW (rounded up to -1)? Or do they retain this capability as three individual X-ships and count -1.5 EW against the enemy (rounded up to -2)?

(I note that the presence of other X-ships could provide the force with additional benefits but I am asking as if these three are the only X-ships involved.)


==============
RULING:

Confirmed by ADB, Tholian X-ships that form a pinwheel are treated as a base (322.31) and as a result, the PW is counted as a single X-base for electronic warfare reduction effects under (523.414).

FEDS SENDS

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, February 24, 2024 - 03:10 am: Edit

Chuck, when I edited the above to confirm them, the color got lost. I will leave it to you to fix at your convenience.

Fixed by FEDS.

Thank you.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, February 24, 2024 - 02:35 pm: Edit

Chuck,

My questions regarding new rule 537.1 have been pending for almost 2 years now (since March 25 of 2022). Rulings on the following questions respectfully requested.

Additionally, I found all my pending questions that have not yet been resolved. They are also below.

Thank you.

---

Quote:

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.

---

---

Quote:

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.

---

---

Quote:

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.

---

---

Quote:

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.

---

---

Quote:

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 Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, February 24, 2024 - 09:11 pm: Edit

Thanks SVC and Chuck

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, February 25, 2024 - 04:51 am: Edit

Ted:

Ref (445.0) FIGHTER STORAGE DEPOTS

It appears that we on the F&E Staff didn't spot this error or failed in our reporting of it to ADB when we updated FO-2016; the depot itself should cost one EP (plus six EPs for the fighters). I apologize for not catching this error.

This is consistent with (454.312) which reads:

QUOTE:
(454.312) Federation SFDs cost one EP plus nine EPs for the F111 fighters (free fighter factors may be used)...

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, February 25, 2024 - 11:22 am: Edit

Chuck, thank you for ruling on the FSD question and clarifying their cost.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, February 25, 2024 - 06:01 pm: Edit

Ref: (537.1) RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS

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.

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

RULING

There is not a whole lot to go here, so looking at the old PO precedence and the intent of this rule (537.12) stated:" This allows one resistance movement per race." Therefore:

Unless overruled by ADB, EACH empire with formerly owned but now captured planets rolls separately one time to see is there was an event under (537.12) happens within their empire. All other following procedures under (512.12) are followed if such an event occurs.

FEDS SENDS

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, February 26, 2024 - 03:30 am: Edit

CONFIRMED, EACH EMPIRE

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, February 26, 2024 - 10:53 am: Edit

Chuck and SVC, thank you for the ruling on this issue.

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Thursday, February 29, 2024 - 07:45 pm: Edit

Encountered an issue with the capital rules today.

(511.537) says that carriers must be divided between the static and mobile forces, and that "In an extreme case when a player had only two carriers and two escorts, he would put one of each in each half, which might make it impossible to form "normal" carrier groups.

But carrier groups can be formed before this point - if there is an approach battle, they must be formed before that and they cannot be broken during that turn's combat. In such a case, the ships in carrier groups partially assigned to the mobile force are functionally static (because they cannot appear in battle except with the static ships in the group). Note that this also occurs when a single ship in a mobile group is crippled.

So the questions I have:

1) Is it possible to form a group with ships from both the mobile and static forces?

2) If so, can the mobile ships of such a group appear apart from the static ships (with gaps in the group)?

3) If not, what happens to groups which have one ship crippled or if there is an approach battle before the static/mobile split?

4) Should that line be removed from (511.537) (because it's misleading)?

I think the answers should be 1) yes, 2) yes, 3) N/A, and 4) yes, and that's how we played it, but I'd like to have a firm answer anyway.

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Thursday, February 29, 2024 - 11:46 pm: Edit

I've found myself with way more EPs than the Hydrans usually have, and I've been trying to figure out what I'm allowed to do. I haven't been able to tell whether I can build an RN and convert it to an LM for 8+3 - do I have to pay for the 4.5 fighter factors if I convert away immediately?

Similarly, there seems to be an oversight in (433.24) or (431.83) or in the Hydran MSIT: the Hydran TG is a CA hull, so it appears that I can substitute a TG for an RN and then convert it to a DG for a total of 1+6+1.5 instead of the construction cost of 8+1.5. It feels like this should be restricted by (431.83) No Double Dutch. I don't love DGs, but if I can save an EP on one it feels worth doing if I can't build the LM. Is this legal?

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Saturday, March 02, 2024 - 11:31 am: Edit

To make Sam's first question more specific, here are the Hydran ships we were dealing with:

TG (that was in the process of setting up a mobile base), TG (with carrier pod), LM, RN, 2xDE, 2xLN, HN, SC. Note - there were also 2xRN and 2xHR that split cleanly and are being ignored for the remainder of the question. In an approach battle, the TG (and VP), 2xDE and HN would be a carrier group.

Splitting the ships first by hull type, we got A: TG (and VP), 2xDE (trying to keep them with the carrier tug), SC, RN; and B: TG, 2xLN, HN, LM. However, because of the carrier pod, group A had a higher compot total so the DEs and LNs had to be swapped to make the aggregate compot as close as possible.

Thus, dividing these ships as evenly as possible required placing the TG (and VP) in one group and the two DEs and HN in the other. However, the rule against splitting carrier groups once combat has begun would seem to prevent this.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, March 02, 2024 - 01:47 pm: Edit

John

Reply moved to Q&A Discussion ...

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Thursday, March 14, 2024 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Are the Marquis' ships fungible? Can the Kzinti send a ship to the Marquis' zone and then move a different ship out?

This seems allowed, provided that the ship sent is part of the original ship mix - because the alternative is tracking which ships were originally part of the Marquis' fleet. The only requirement is that the Marquis' fleet leave 6 ships (including a CC) in the area, but there's no restriction on leaving and returning.

A follow-up question is whether this is allowed with crippled ships (returning a crippled bc to 1704, sending an uncrippled BC out).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, March 14, 2024 - 03:53 pm: Edit

Reply in Q&A discussions.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, April 08, 2024 - 09:47 pm: Edit

Q537.11. Does the term "commando ship" in 537.11 refer to a ship, or to the G's on a ship?

This rule requires, to prevent automatic rebellion of a captured planet, "two of the following" to be present: "IGCE, PDU (not PGB), or commando ship in orbit."

Example: If the rule is taken literally as a commando ship, then a Gorn DNG with 3 Gs still has to be supported by a Gorn DDG with one G in order to prevent automatic rebellion of a captured Romulan planet (i.e., two ships). However, if it is the number of Gs that are important, then the Gorn DNG (with 3 Gs) alone has at least two Gs, thereby satisfying the garrison requirement of 537.11.

Ruling respectfully requested.

Thank you.

By Tom Lusco (Tlusco) on Monday, April 15, 2024 - 10:52 am: Edit

This is fortuitous timing Ted. Just started a new game and made a house ruling that two 'G' factors was sufficient. Official ruling would be good.

By Tom Lusco (Tlusco) on Monday, April 15, 2024 - 06:07 pm: Edit

Q320.364 Allocate Drone Raid Damage

"...the drone attack must score a number of damage points equal to or greater than the number of points to either cripple or destroy the target."

I think a few words are missing. Should this say "...equal to or greater than the number of points shown on the ship counter...?" I think that's the intent, that for example scoring 2 points would not be enough to kill a crippled CW; that would require 4 points.

Do I have that right? (FWIW, I hope I'm wrong. I want 2 points to kill a crippled CW!)

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, April 15, 2024 - 06:58 pm: Edit

TL, you have it right (need the number shown to affect the counter [main reason is FRDs, I believe]) …