(312.31) Change "B11S or AA" to "B11SA or AA". - Wyszynski 9/9/2021

(312.31) Add "B11A or AA: Converted from other B10/B11s." - Wyszynski 9/9/2021

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, September 25, 2021 - 12:24 pm: Edit

(312.122) Although it is stated that if the attacker BIR is 4 or the total BIR is 5+ (if the attacker pick both numbers), nowhere is it stated what the (total) BIR needs to be for the defender to use a base-borne SFG offensively.

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, September 25, 2021 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Stewart; by (312.122) the total does not matter. You can use your base mounted SFG only if the attacker selects a 4 BIR or if the attacker selects numbers adding up to 5+ when picking both numbers. So the final total does not actually matter and VBI (variable battle intensity) does not alter the option to use a base mounted SFG.


The limit on how many SFGs can be used is under (312.25). The limit is two SFG generators from ships may be used in a single combat round. They may be on the same ship or on different ships. SFGs from a base are outside this limit.

I believe this is a change from previous editions. The limit used to be any two ships armed with SFGs allowing a pair of B10s to potentially lock down an entire fleet. Not surprising that this was changes.

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, September 25, 2021 - 01:05 pm: Edit

(311.4) SFG Interactions. SFG rules are under 312. Rule number in this section header is a typo. Change rule number to (312.4). - DGKnipfer 9/25/2021

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, September 25, 2021 - 06:59 pm: Edit

(312.211) The EW in 'Step 5-3H' should be 'Step 5-4A' to reflect the summary in (311.3).

DGK, yep, so putting an SFG on a base is only to slow an attacker down slightly, as it (almost) never gets used otherwise ... [the VBIR counts only if the attacker is selecting both number so the base is nude to start with and only the attacker can use (304.5)]

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, September 27, 2021 - 06:27 pm: Edit

(521.4) The STB is listed as both a major base (521.41) and a smaller base (521.42), last paragraph. Which is it?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, September 27, 2021 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Stew, the STB has an intrinsic G unit like the SB and SF. Unlike the SB and SF it is not a size class 1 unit making it a smaller base. So I would say it is something of a hybrid.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, September 28, 2021 - 06:10 am: Edit

(521.43) Rule states X-versions of these crippled bases are destroyed if a marine attack is successful, however X-version of the these bases do have multiple crippled SIDS points (see SITs). Current rule reads:

\indent (521.43) SMALLER BASES: A successful Marine attack on a crippled battle station (or base station, operations base, or the X version of any of those) will destroy it, as a crippled battle station effectively has only one SIDS step.

FEDS recommends changing first sentence to read:

(521.43) MINOR BASES: A successful Marine attack on a crippled battle station (or base station, mobile base, or operations base), will destroy it, as these crippled minor bases effectively have only one SIDS step. Note that X-versions of some of these bases have multiple crippled SIDS points requiring more effort to destroy (see base SITs for the number of SIDS points required to destroy an X-version of a base.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, October 21, 2021 - 06:54 am: Edit

I plan to delete almost all of this file sometime in early November. If you want a copy, get it.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - 08:27 pm: Edit

702.0 Remove "CWV: 1xSWAC" from the First (Home) Fleet entry
Rationale: Carrier War is an out-of-print product and the SWAC in in Fighter Ops, not Combined Ops.
Jason E. Schaff - 10/27/2021

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, December 27, 2021 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Combined Ops AAR:

(612.0) The Wayward Wind

Small Typo in (612.21) listed Lyran Fleets:
Lyran Forces Available: 'Southern' Fleet, Home Fleet.
Instead should be listed as: "Enemy's Blood" Fleet, Home Fleet.

While technically correct that the EB Fleet is the Lyran's southern fleet the game does not come with a Southern Fleet marker. L. Bergen - 27 DEC 2021

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, January 13, 2022 - 09:56 am: Edit

(312.231C) = Would the D5WA (DWA) would use the D7A lines [or noted in (312.31)] ??

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Monday, March 21, 2022 - 07:10 am: Edit

(516.322) In the first paragraph, in the text “only perform only” remove the second “only”. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(517.42) In the last paragraph, in the text “restrictions.The” add a space after the period. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(521.61) In the last sentence, change “summaried” to “summarized” (by adding the “z”). – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(522.41) In the text “No more than two prime teams can be used in this matter”, change “matter” to “manner”. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Monday, March 21, 2022 - 07:11 am: Edit

(609.1) GENERAL SCENARIO RULES: This rule is incorrectly numbered as (609.0). – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(610.32) In the header change “KZINITIS” to “KZINTIS” (by removing the second “I”). – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(611.52) At the end of the second paragraph remove the “•”. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(612.42) UPDATES: This rule is incorrectly numbered as (612.32). – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(612.53) MAJOR VICTORY: This rule is incorrectly numbered as (612.52). In addition, the next three rules are also incorrectly numbered. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(615.2) ALTERNATIVE CAMPAIGN START: This rule is incorrectly numbered as (614.5). – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Monday, March 21, 2022 - 07:11 am: Edit

(312.202) In the last sentence, change (321.222) to (312.222). There is no rule (312.222), and (312.0) is for Marine Major Generals, while (312.222) covers rolling a SFG freeze attempt. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(312.283) The “Federation & Empire Master Errata File” has the following errata for this rule: “Delete irrelevant reference to (312.22).” The rule still references (312.22) but presumably that reference should be removed. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(312.44) Change (313.231) to (313.2). There is no rule (313.231) and (313.2) deals with the die roll shift for EW. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(312.45) Change (310.222) to (312.222). There is no rule (310.222) but should be (312.222) based on (310.42) which has: “If an SFG unit has the two required consorts in a (310.0) battle, then resolve the SFG interaction by (312.222)”. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Monday, March 21, 2022 - 07:12 am: Edit

(513.23) Change (303.334) to (302.334). Rule (303.334) does not exist, and (302.334) is the rule for the three fighter/PF squadron limit. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(519.12) The “Federation & Empire Master Errata File” has the following errata for this rule: “Reference (763.0) should be (701.0).” Since (763.0) is for Overloaded Tug-Pod Combinations the change to (701.0) seems appropriate. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(521.394) The “Federation & Empire Master Errata File” has the following errata for this rule: ‘The third sentence should say "...at the end of the combat phase..." rather than "...combat round...".’ This rules text was not changed for this errata. However, since retreats occur at the end of a combat, not at the end of the combat phase, presumably the test should be changed “end of the combat”. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(521.42) Change (521.895) to (521.835). Rule (521.895) does not exist and (521.835) covers IGCEs that are assigned to PDUs/PFBs at a capital/shipyard planet. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(521.43) The “Federation & Empire Master Errata File” has the following errata for this rule: “Reference (512.34) should be (521.34)” but the errata was not added into this rule. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(521.81) The “Federation & Empire Master Errata File” has the following errata for this rule: “A battle force cannot buy extra G factors without a valid supply path during its combat” but no text was added to this rule for this errata. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Monday, March 21, 2022 - 07:12 am: Edit

(616.31) The “Federation & Empire Master Errata File” has the following errata for this rule: “Raids (314.0) would not activate the Coalition.” This errata was not added to this rule. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(616.411) I recommend that the second paragraph be moved to the end of the last paragraph in (616.33) since both deal with the secret defense brigades. The text I recommend to move is: “The secret PDUs can only be placed on original Hydran planets (not Klingon or Lyran planets), and you could easily have a battle with opposing PDUs on the same planet.” – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

(703.4) In the “PF Deployment:” paragraph, change “(See 517.2)” to “See (513.2)”. Rule (517.2) deals with pods use on tugs while (513.2) is the rule for the Klingon 77th PF Division. – Jeff Coutu, 21 March 2022

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, May 30, 2022 - 08:10 am: Edit

(516.21) T. An LTT can carry one half-turn of spare parts for KR ships used by the Romulans (442.82)

should read:

T. An LTT (including the SPH) can carry 0.5 turns of spare parts for KR ships used by the Romulans (442.82).
REASON: The SPH can only carry half of the what the KRT can carry.
Thomas Mathews 30 May 2022

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, June 09, 2022 - 03:03 am: Edit

deleted by author as duplicative

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, March 03, 2023 - 07:17 pm: Edit

POTENTIAL MISSED STATEMENT

Combined Operations 2021
(520.22) STRATEGIC MOVEMENT: SAFs can be moved by strategic movement without cost, but only up to 12 hexes per turn.

Combined Operations 2003 (bold added for reference)
(520.22) STRATEGIC MOVEMENT: SAFs can be moved by strategic movement without cost, but only up to 12 hexes per turn. Any SAF moved counts as three ships against the allowance for that race.

I believe the Answer/correction from 2018 was dropped in 2021 by accident from the revision. Please verify the ruling was correct and whether the update done in 2021 missed adding the corrected line, or if mindsets were shifted.
Question here to be answered is does an SAF still count against the Strategic movement as 3 ships? Another point of clarification for this (since you are in there) would be to answer if this would also count on an allied grid (should they leave your own)?

RATIONALE: (From the most recent rulings in 2018.)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, November 09, 2018 - 12:45 pm: Edit
Commentary: A SAF by its very name is a 'force' or a conglomeration of SFB units; it is treated as a 'special' type of three-unit convoy under F&E rules:

Quote:
(520.22) SAFs can be moved by Strategic Movement without cost, but only up to 12 hexes per turn. SAF initial movement is at no cost, but subsequent movement counts as three ships against the allowance for that race.

=========

(520.5) USE IN COMBAT (OTHER): If enemy forces enter a hex containing an SAF, the SAF is treated in the same manner as a convoy (but it can be crippled).

FEDS SENDS

Note to F&E Staff: Let's fix the SITs to make this clear.

====================
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, November 09, 2018 - 10:06 pm: Edit

FEAR Concurs with above

====================
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, November 10, 2018 - 02:03 am: Edit

Correct... SVC

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Saturday, March 04, 2023 - 09:32 am: Edit

Further correction to the above:

To avoid incurring "The Wrath of Jean" (sounds like a fun movie), replace "race" with "empire"

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, March 04, 2023 - 10:49 am: Edit

I must have missed a sequel or two…

Has anyone actually provoked the “Wrath Of Jean??

And in the after action report, did the offender render a statement?

Or is it a case of “waiting for the body to resurface?”

Just curious.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, March 04, 2023 - 04:30 pm: Edit

I think a statement was made by rendering the offender.....

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, March 04, 2023 - 09:16 pm: Edit

(Shudder.)

Sounds painful.

By Jean Sexton Beddow (Jsexton) on Monday, March 06, 2023 - 03:39 pm: Edit

It was mercifully short ...

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, March 07, 2023 - 12:41 pm: Edit

See, it was Jean, so it was merciful. If it had been Petrick, it would have been neither merciful nor short.


Garth L. Getgen

By Joseph Jackson (Bonneville) on Tuesday, March 07, 2023 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Why do I have an image of a romanesque Joaquin Phoenix screaming, "Am I not Merciful?"

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Tuesday, March 14, 2023 - 06:13 pm: Edit

In (612.5), (612.52) is listed with Decisive and Major Victories ...