Question about release status of units:

Rule (600.35) DIPLOMATS: Diplomatic teams (including Klingon diplomatic cruisers) and small transports carrying diplomatic teams are always released and can go about their business (540.0).

If an APT/PTR or other small transport is pulled to duty from an unreleased fleet and then (later) the diplomat is reassigned to a different ship would that original carrying small transport be required to return to its unreleased status and move back to the unreleased fleet? (assuming the fleet was still unreleased of course). Or would it remain released and able to do other stuff and things?

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Wednesday, April 17, 2024 - 03:48 pm: Edit

If there is a Federation reserve fleet in the Orion Enclave, does it lose its reserve status when it retreats out of the enclave? (203.76) only says that a fleet loses reserve status if it reacts, and (302.7) is silent on the matter.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Wednesday, April 17, 2024 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Can starbase frigate production (431.5) occur at a crippled starbase?

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


Unless overruled by ADB, add the following rule:

(431.503) Crippled starbases (or any other type of crippled base) cannot produce any type of unit unless specifically stated elsewhere.

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, April 24, 2024 - 08:31 am: Edit

Chuck, I'm going to challenge the ruling on (445.0) Fighter Supply Depots. The intro paragraph clearly states, "What is actually happening is that a supply line is being set up to stockpile spare fighters in the base's cargo holds." It is not a production line building new fighters. It is a logistics center to coordinate the distribution of an existing asset.

Because it is a distribution center coordinating a supply chain and not a production facility, I believe that the original SIT listed cost of 6EP is correct, and that as a construction task that tugs can perform an Engineering Corp can build them.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 24, 2024 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Dan:

Ref the set up cost of:

Fighter Supply Depots
PF Support Depots
Special Fighter (F-111) Depots

All these depots act like remote FCRs that shuttle attrition units rapidly to the needed front. Each should cost 1 EP to setup in the cargo hold the depot of choice plus the cost of the attrition units added. If the suggestion is to allow the engineers to discount the cost of a six fighter supply chain of FSDs by five EPs; then this would be inconsistent with the Federation's F-111 depot (454.312) which cost one EP to set up the depot plus nine EPs to pay for the F-111 chain. (As a reminder, even FCRs must pay 1 EP for the cost of each fighter factor carried.)

It would also be inconsistent with the COE rule (541.31) which states; "...Any fighters or PFs for constructed or upgraded bases must still be paid for separately from the discounted construction cost..."

If this is your suggestion, then, as FEDS, I cannot support this interpretation. If I am not understanding your objection correctly, then please give me a more detailed explanation of your interpretation especially in light of the Federation F-111 Depot rule (454.312).

Thank you,
FEDS

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

References from the PF Support Depot Rules:

(454.31) BASIC: Each PFD costs one EP plus the cost of any purchased PFs; free replacement PFs (442.23) or pooled PFs (502.615) may be used. (This will eventually be added to the Ship Information Tables, but that will take some time, so we include the cost information here.)

(454.311) Each empire can buy one PFD per turn but cannot buy PFDs until the third turn of PF deployment for a given empire.

(454.312) Federation SFDs cost one EP plus nine EPs for the F111 fighters (free fighter factors may be used); if using the pay-as-you-go option (527.16), then any initial F111s and any replacements must be paid for at 0.25 EPs per factor.

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Friday, May 03, 2024 - 04:42 am: Edit

If I'm the Hydrans and I build a warship frigate instead of the AH escort that's on the production schedule, can I build a CU or am I forced to build it as a HN?

By Benjamin Lee Johnson (Jedipilot24) on Friday, May 03, 2024 - 07:38 am: Edit

(709.221) says "HN for CU but not vice-versa." And since the AH is the escort version of the HN (HN=Hunter, AH=Aegis Hunter), I would say, "no, you can't sub a CU for an AH. But you could sub an SA.

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Friday, May 03, 2024 - 08:38 am: Edit

I concur with above.

F&E OB Specialist

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Friday, May 03, 2024 - 10:02 am: Edit

You may build either a CU or an HN. It is correct that 709.221 prohibits substituting a CU for an HN. However, 431.734 states: "Each escort is replaced by the base hull type, e.g., a Hydran AH is replaced by an HN or CU, not a CR."

So the second rule clearly allows a CU to be substituted for a scheduled AH.

By Warren Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, May 03, 2024 - 02:17 pm: Edit

Copied from The Hydran Master Starship Book (R9.7) and (R9.13) as a friend of the court:

---

Quote:

(R9.7) The Cuirassier is the hellbore variant of the Hunter (R9.6) and is the basis for some ships considered to be Hunter variants.

---

---

Quote:

(R9.13) This ship is a variant of the Hunter (R9.6)

---

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Friday, May 03, 2024 - 02:58 pm: Edit

(203.731) allows a reserve fleet to move to a hex which opens supply to a combat hex. However, it only allows for it in the case where the hex the reserve moves to has enemy ships. I (almost) ran into this situation:

There are combat hexes in 0117, 0217 (both with substantial Coalition pincount advantages), and also combat in 0212. There's a Lyran FF blocking supply to 0212.

If the FF is in 0215, an offmap reserve can reach it, and (203.731) allows it to go there (0118-0218-0318-0317-0216-0215). If the FF is in 0115, the reserve can't go to 0215 (and open supply) despite the fact that the ostensible goal of (203.731) is to allow reserve fleets to act in a way that opens supply. I think this should be changed; reserve fleets should be able to move to empty hexes in this circumstance.

I admit, there may be awkward consequences of just allowing a reserve to move to open space (it might allow a reserve fleet to avoid fighting when opening supply). But given the value of reserve fleets generally, that seem like it'd mostly be a non-issue. And potentially it can be restricted to when the reserve can't quite reach - so going to an empty hex to open supply might only be allowed if the reserve can't go to a hex with enemy ships in order to open supply.

I'm not 100% sure this is the right place to ask as I'm essentially asking for a rule change rather than a ruling or clarification, so apologies if there was a better place.

By Paul Shutter (Cusimanse) on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 - 10:36 pm: Edit

442.42 says that the Hydrans get the Guild bonus at 5 EP/turn once the Federation enters the game, even if still on the map. If the Old Colonies is split by into a separate grid, does the Hydran get the 5 EP in the Capital or does it stay on the Old Colonies. Based on the remainder of 442.4, I would think that it has to stay off map, but it doesn't specify.

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Thursday, May 23, 2024 - 05:05 pm: Edit

(431.71) How many times a turn (Klingon for this example, but I can't find any race besides the Lyrans that have any specific substitution restrictions printed) can I substitute a carrier (and presumably escorts) for their given base ships up to the limits of a turn's carrier restrictions found in the (700) OOB documents?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, May 23, 2024 - 06:45 pm: Edit

AAH - it's generally two carriers plus an escort carrier per turn (depending on the escort carrier's YIS), except for the Romulans who have their own …

[heavy carriers replace one carrier per year …]

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Saturday, May 25, 2024 - 08:31 am: Edit

That doesn't quite answer my question. To give a specific example, as the Klingons, can I substitute 2*D5V and an FV per turn 170+ instead of the 2 D5s and F5?

By Benjamin Lee Johnson (Jedipilot24) on Sunday, May 26, 2024 - 05:45 am: Edit

You could produce, but not substitute, and you'd also have to pay full price for the some of the fighters

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Monday, May 27, 2024 - 05:00 am: Edit

It looks like they pretty much answered my question in the Q&A Discussion forum. Thanks for everyone's help.

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Monday, May 27, 2024 - 05:02 am: Edit

I have a lot of questions. I hope that's ok. When I direct damage a Hydran Ranger, how do I account for the "triangle fighter factor"? Is it an additional -4 points of damage that has to be accounted for? Does it matter if it's mated up with another half-factor to make a full factor?

By Warren Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, May 27, 2024 - 08:31 am: Edit

When directing on an individual ship, the fighters are not counted in the amount of damage required for the targeted ship to be crippled or destroyed. See (302.53).

By Karl Mangold (Solomon) on Tuesday, June 04, 2024 - 12:01 pm: Edit

I have a clarifying question regarding the salvage rules. In our current game, a lone Kzinti FF got steamrolled by a retreating Lyran fleet and was destroyed in the one round of fighting retreat combat. The hex in question (0802 specifically) is adjacent to the SB in 0902, but 0802 is open space, so there were no other friendly units left in the hex. In case it matters (although I think not), the battle was a fighting retreat so the Lyran fleet vacated the hex at the conclusion of the combat round.
Salvage rule (439.16) states that if all friendly ships on one or both sides are destroyed, then the hex must be evaluated for supply without the presence of those ships. The question is, in this particular scenario, does the FF generate salvage?

1. The remaining enemy ships at the end of the battle round cause the hex to be considered unsupplied because there are no remaining friendly ships. The exception would be if a friendly non-ship units were in the hex, or if a base or planet remained in the hex so that the hex would always be in supply. By this reasoning the destroyed FF in this case generates no salvage because there were no other friendly units in the hex.

2. Alternatively, since a supply path strictly speaking does not include the hex being supplied, then there is a valid supply path to the hex (SB is adjacent), the remaining enemy ships do not block supply to the hex, and the FF does generate salvage.

Am I overthinking this?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, June 10, 2024 - 05:37 pm: Edit

In light of a recent Star Fleet Battles-related discussion elsewhere on the BBS, and with various transport and auxiliary counters being added to the latest round of countersheet revisions, I wished to clarify something about the Federation and Empire take on this topic:

In SFB, according to (G14.73), freighters - to include auxiliaries - can be moved "as cargo" by tugs. This can be done in order to deploy an auxiliary more rapidly than if obliged to move under its own power, as defined in F&E terms under (549.2).

Although, as was being asked about in the other thread, it's not clear which types of Alpha Octant transports can carry which types of freighter (or auxiliary) - or, at least, not quite as of yet. Although, it would be interesting if it turned out that a "lost empire" Paravian BBR can cart around a heavy auxiliary all by itself...

From what I can see, neither the rules in (549.0), nor the list of tug missions covered under (509.1), cover this use case in F&E terms.

Is there a set of rules which govern the transporting of auxiliaries by tugs (or by other types of transport) somewhere in the game system?

Or, if the rules do not allow for this at present: is this a concept that could be offered at some future point in time - or has a decision already been made by ADB not to go in that direction?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, June 10, 2024 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Personally, I think that phrase means 'tow' as it's easier on the tug and allows the freighter to add a little push during the tow (even if just an impulse engine for the last impulse).

Note that a small freighter has a turbolift 'strap' over the top (and maybe bottom) of the pod being carried, blocking the tug connection point (if it had one [spend money on something that's not being used on normal missions], anything to save money) …

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, June 13, 2024 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Not all pods are carried from "above" or "below the transport carrying it. The ISC tug, for example, carries its pods to either side of the central "prong"; while the ISC LTT replaces the CL's central "prong" with a forward-facing pod mount.

If I recall correctly, there is a note in the Y-era material for SFB about how the Early Years Tug was used by the ISC to rescue stranded freighters - though, in fairness, it did not formally state how the tug's own movement was affected while doing so.

Although, it's notable that the Shapeways design for the small ISC freighter appears to be designed so that it can be docked "backwards" to a tug or LTT, if so required.

-----

Speaking of pods: there was a separate question I had, as regards which SFB pod variants are noteworthy enough to generate a separate SIT listing in F&E terms.

In particular, I was thinking of self-defence pods - which, so far as I am aware, are not presently accounted for in F&E terms.

In SFB, these typically provide a reduced amount of cargo space relative to a regular cargo pod, in excahnge for added weaponry and power systems - though not quite on the same scale as those provided by a battle pod.

To once again lean into the "lost empire" Paravians as an example of this: the "sample" DNR configuration presented over on Shapeways has a scout pod and two self-defence pods.

The scout pod is already accounted for on the WIP Paravian SIT. Yet, in SFB terms, each self-defence pod provides a pair of phaser-1s, 4 APRs, and 2 batteries - while still having 2/3s of the cargo capacity of a Paravian cargo pod. With both pods attached, that is a not-insignificant boost to the DNR's base capacities - not least since SFB allows the hull to mount all three pods with no loss in Move Cost.

While other Alpha empires - "lost" or otherwise - don't have Size Class 2 military transports to take best advantage of this, a few of them (to include the Federation and Kzintis) might still find themselves deploying their own self-defence pods, in SFB terms at least.

So, my question is this: was it decided at some point that the effect of such pods - regardless of operating empire - was not enough to warrant a dedicated SIT entry in F&E terms? Or, if going on a case-by-case (or rather, empire-by-empire) basis, might there be grounds for offering dedicated self-defence pod listings - and, if so, what kind of adjustment would they provide (or in the case of their reduced amount of cargo space, impose) in game terms?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, June 16, 2024 - 12:02 pm: Edit

(525.23A) Federation Assault Fighter Carrier (A): Adopting this mission works the same way as a carrier (V) below, except as follows: The AOG (Assault Operations Group) has 10 A20 combat factors (10V) and costs 18 EPs; Federation HDW use only.

Other 525.23 rules are explicit about what to do for a crippled unit, should not "(10V)" be "(10V)/(5V)"?

There is nothing in the rule that states if there are fighter factors on the base hull they are removed. Should this be added to the text?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, June 16, 2024 - 03:23 pm: Edit

(525.23Y) Federation F-101 Heavy Fighter Carrier (Y): Adopting this mission works the same way as a carrier (V) above, except as follows: The YOG (F101 Operations Group) has eight F101 combat factors (8Y) and costs 14 EPs; Federation HDW use
only. This ship is in Tactical Operations.
(525.23Z) Federation Special Heavy Fighter

Should not the rule contain what type of carrier this unit becomes (e.g. Medium Carrier)?

Other 525.23 rules are explicit about what to do for a crippled unit, should not "(8Y)" be "(8Y)/(4Y)"?

There is nothing in the rule that states if there are fighter factors on the base hull they are removed. Should this be added to the text?


Carrier (Z): Adopting this mission works the same way as a carrier (V) and scout (S) above, except as follows: The ZOG (Special Operations Group) has EW plus six F111 combat factors (6H) and costs 2+10 EPs; Federation HDW use only. As a scout, this ship also has the following EW settings:
2 EW: Reduce attack factor to 2 points.
1 EW: Use printed attack factor.
0 EW: If the HDW is crippled.
This ship is in Tactical Operation.

Should not the rule contain what type of carrier this unit becomes (e.g. Medium Carrier)?

Other 525.23 rules are explicit about what to do for a crippled unit, should not "(6H)" be "(6H)/(3H)"?

There is nothing in the rule that states if there are fighter factors on the base hull they are removed. Should this be added to the text?