Here's another question (there will probably be a few on the same topic coming up here) about Federation activation from the Hydran Expedition. In (601.14) it states "If the Hydrans enter Federation territory on an Alliance turn, the Federation economy is at 50 percent that turn (spent immediately), 75 percent on the next turn, and 100 percent on the next turn and thereafter."
My question is, since the Hydrans would be entering Federation space to activate them on the operational move portion of the turn, is the Federation PWC for that turn already constructed? And if it is, does the construction cost come out of the 50% economy that turn or are they already paid for, with the Federation player getting the 50% Fed economy outright? The parenthetical "spent immediately" suggests that the Feds would fill out an econ form at that moment, however it would already be past the production phase of the turn.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, September 03, 2024 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Karl - see comment/answer in Q&A discussions

By Karl Mangold (Solomon) on Tuesday, September 03, 2024 - 01:50 pm: Edit

Minor question here, but I noticed on the SIT it states that the Fed CLS is obsolete. The rule (542.16) the SIT references, however, is an entry about X-survey ships. If the design is obsolete, does that mean CLSs can't be sent off-map for survey duty?
NO, IT DOES NOT.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Tuesday, September 03, 2024 - 10:21 pm: Edit

Karl, obsolete means the ship cannot be new construction, there are two in the off-map area to start with (of the starting seven) …

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Sunday, September 08, 2024 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Karl & Stewart, I was told by ADB that the Fed CLS and Hydran SR were deemed not to be obsolete as was previously stated. Is this true? Do they or should they become obsolete at some future game date?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, September 08, 2024 - 04:52 pm: Edit

That rule was removed in newest SO update.

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Tuesday, September 10, 2024 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Hello there. I have a question concerning the initial deployment of Monitors. Rule 519.11 states that each empire starts the game with a number of Monitors and that they must be deployed at the start of any scenario at any planet in that empire's territory {not in the capital, including any of the three Gorn or two Romulan capitals). Could someone confirm whether or not that means that any Monitors that you start the game with can be assigned to a planet in the capital hex? For example could I start the scenario by deploying a monitor at one of the minor planets in the Hydran capital hex? Thank You.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, September 10, 2024 - 08:38 pm: Edit

Rule clearly states, no capitals.

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Tuesday, September 10, 2024 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Thank you Ryan, The question came up and asking on this discussion board beats arguing. Thank you for the clarification.

By Karl Mangold (Solomon) on Wednesday, September 11, 2024 - 05:40 am: Edit

Minor question about Early Warning Networks (537.3); the rule (537.31) states that it takes "3 locations, not just 3 bases" to qualify for an EWN. There is mention that capital systems qualify at start, but does it mean that 3 separate systems (or planets) have to have bases/PDUs to qualify? If there are two bases in a system not co-located, does that count as separate locations? I'm assuming that the capital starbase plus capital planet together are one location since the SB is assumed to be "at the planet."

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, September 11, 2024 - 09:51 am: Edit

Karl, not an official answer, but I think it's "no" to first answer. You could have 3 different planets in the same system with PDUs or bases and the EWN would still be present.

I think the answer to your second question is "yes, but". If the bases are not co-located, they are presumably at different planets. In this case, they are at separate locations. Theoretically if the bases were not co-located at the same planet, then the answer changes to "no."

I think the answer to your third question is "yes". The SB and PDUs at the capital count as one location for the EWN, because they are at the same planet.

Think of it this way: Count the number of different planets in a capital system that have bases *or* PDUs *or* both bases and PDUs. If the number of such planets is 3 or more the EWN is present.

By Paul Shutter (Cusimanse) on Friday, September 20, 2024 - 11:11 pm: Edit

I have two questions about scenario 632.

Since it specifies that Federation ships are quintupled, Auxiliaries are not included, correct?

The set-up order is specified, but not who goes first. I would think the Feds, but would like confirmation.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, September 24, 2024 - 10:39 am: Edit

(204.201) gives a list of strategic movement nodes. (546.32) adds Seltorian STSs to this list. In a hypothetical situation in which the Seltorians do not have any of the friendly SMNs listed in (204.201), can the STS act as its own SMN

Using the same logic, can the STSs act as their own retrograde points?

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Monday, September 30, 2024 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Hello there. I'm sure that this question has been asked, but I just noticed that the SIT for the Hydran DG and the LB have one fighter each, but the counters show these ships as having two fighters each. Is this a misprint on the SIT sheets? The LB and DG counters on the vassal module also list these counters as having only one fighter each. So which should I consider to be correct. The SIT's or the counters? Thank you for your time.

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Monday, September 30, 2024 - 04:09 pm: Edit

The SIT at the back of the 2010 rule book also show that the Hydran LB and DG ships only have one fighter each.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, September 30, 2024 - 04:57 pm: Edit

The LB and DG each have 1.5 fighter factors. The notation is a 1 followed by a black (or white, depending on the counter background) triangle. This is what's on the most current versions of the counters on sheets Alpha and Bravo:

https://www.starfleetstore.com/countersheets-c-22_37/fe-countersheet-alpha-p-674.html?zenid=1hps2la3sgn5ci213qq1oc6rp3

https://www.starfleetstore.com/countersheets-c-22_37/fe-countersheet-bravo-p-675.html?zenid=1hps2la3sgn5ci213qq1oc6rp3

The most current versions of the SITs can be found here:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/6548.html?1718891973

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Monday, September 30, 2024 - 05:18 pm: Edit

never mind, just saw what the triangle on the counters meant.

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Monday, September 30, 2024 - 05:22 pm: Edit

Thank you Jason, we found the rule explaining about the half fighter groups. I appreciate the response though.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, October 08, 2024 - 09:32 pm: Edit

I am confused about heavy fighters. AO rule 530.223 says the Kzinti get heavy fighters starting in Spring 178. However, the SIT shows the ACH and CSV available in 175 and the CVH available in 176. To make matters even more confusing, there is also the DCS(H), which appears to be identical to the ACH, except that its availability year is 178.

When can the Kzinti start building ACS, CSV, and CVH?

I can see an argument that they are all Y178, per heavy fighter availability.

I can also see an argument that they can start building ACS and CSV in 175 and CVH in 176.

A quick A would be helpful in continuing my game with Ted, if y'all can do that.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, October 08, 2024 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Ship production is goverened by the SIT.

Base deployment is determined by the Rule.

So yes you can build the carrier based heavy fighter carriers when the SIT says so. But the base deployment of Kzinti Heavy Fighters is by the rule.

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Saturday, October 12, 2024 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Hello there. I have a question concerning the Federation FEMA ships in Tactical Operations. Rule 511.713 states in peacetime, the two FEMA ships help in colonial development by eliminating the cost for each turn they are present in the hex where a colony is being built.
Rule 511.714 states that in wartime the two FEMA ships help in the recovery of devastated planets . Each turn that a FEMA ship is in a hex of a recovering planet it counts as two turns for recovery.
My question is that when the Federation goes to war do the FEMA ships lose the 511.713 rule that gives them the ability to build colonies for free?
Thank you.

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Sunday, October 13, 2024 - 06:50 pm: Edit

Hello there. I have a question concerning receiving production from a captured planet.
rule 508.22 states that the capturing player doesn't receive production at the devastated rate until they have held the planet for two continues subsequent turns. does that mean that if I capture a planet on the coalition turn 3,and I keep this planet and it is never recaptured, that I don't receive any production points from this captured planet until coalition turn 5?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Sunday, October 13, 2024 - 09:30 pm: Edit

BP, basically yes. You captures a planet on T3, T4 is your first turn, T5 is your second (continuous) and can collect during the Income Phase …

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Monday, October 14, 2024 - 09:09 am: Edit

cool, thank you Stewart. that means that I've only been doing this wrong for about 34 years

By Bill Powell (Bleedingbill) on Tuesday, October 15, 2024 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Hello there. I'm hoping that I can get some clarification here. The rules tell me what a supply grid is, what a supply point is, and what a supply route is. I know how to block and re-establish supply. My question is is a supply point that is contested still a supply point? The reason that I ask is when I am retreating from a hex I am supposed to retreat to the closest supply point if possible. What happens if the closest supply point at the beginning of the turn is the site of another battle during combat phase and has more enemy units on it than the player who owns the supply hex. Would that supply point still be valid during retreat phase? For an example, In my current game we start the game by checking for supply. There are Hydrans on the minor planet on hex 0416 and on the Hydran capital. both of these stacks are in supply at the start of the game and at the beginning of the movement phase.
During combat phase I have placed enough coalition forces on the Hydran capital to outnumber the Hydrans there, and a large coalition force on the minor planet in hex 0416. The starbase at hex 0215 is also still in place and is not being contested. so that leaves two supply points equal distance apart at the start of the turn from hex 0416. In the combat phase I attack the minor planet in hex 0416 and force the hydran force to retreat. I still have more coalition ships in the capital hex then the Hydrans have and that battle hasn't been fought yet. The Hydran force from hex 0416 has to retreat to the closest supply point, can the capital hex count as a supply point even though there are coalition ships in that hex, but it still belongs to the Hydrans at that point, or does tha Hydran retreating force have to retreat towards the star base in hex 0215, or can the Hydran player use either hex. Thank you for your time and patience.