James -- Please cite your references to support your claim if you have them; it helps FEAR/FEDS whenever players can do this. Thanks.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, December 24, 2011 - 05:14 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

(706.0) General HQ: (Y186 OoB) The OoB gives the Gorn one REPR and 3xR-POD. However, the Gorns normally get two REPR, and receive three repair pods in addition to the normal one. Since there is currently no way to lose these in combat, I suggest this should be 2xREPR and 4xR-POD. -James Lowry 24 Dec 2011

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 24, 2011 - 06:04 pm: Edit

(706.0) Gorn General HQ: (Y186 OoB): CHANGE "REPR" to read "2xREPR" and "3xR-POD" to read "4xR-POD". STRONG - 24 Dec 2011

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 24, 2011 - 06:29 pm: Edit

James Lowry stated:

---

Quote:

ISC HFP: Sheet Four has 4 of these pods (0[8H]). Since there is no '+' or '-' in the name, these would seem to be tug or LTT pods. However, (545.12) does not note such an exception. The ISC SIT does not seem to list the HFP at all, though there is the LTT-only LHF (0[8H]) pod (limit 2). Should I mark two of these as Tug pods, and 2 as LTT pods?

---

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Sunday, December 25, 2011 - 03:44 am: Edit

...could you check that again? On my Sheet Four, right side, top block I see two VHP+ pods (0(4H)), and next to them, four HFP pods (0[8H]).

Looking around, I do see the LHF on Sheet Indigo, which I think I missed when I made that report, so that clears up my confusion there. Looking at (713.4) I do see the HFP listed (limit 4), so it looks like it's really just a missing SIT entry problem.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, December 25, 2011 - 11:44 am: Edit

James:
Here is the ISC Single-Sided Sheet. I don't see any 0[8H] pod counters; what I see is 4xHFP with 0[4H] factors. What am I not seeing?

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, December 25, 2011 - 12:09 pm: Edit

Chuck:

The HFP counters are definitely 0[8H] I just checked my counter set, and they're in there. From the image for sheet 4 in the online store, see the right side of the countersheet, top 2 rows, 2nd and 3rd counters in from the left in each row. The image you have linked does _not_ match what is shown in the store, or what is in my counterset, which has no 0[4H] counters.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Sunday, December 25, 2011 - 12:27 pm: Edit

That PDF is not the printed version. Copyright date is different (2004 vs 2005). All tug pods other than the HFP have a trailing '+', all LTT pods have a trailing '-'. (The TP, being for both, has neither; part of why I wondered if the HFP was meant for both at first.) All factors other than the HFP seem to match.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Sunday, December 25, 2011 - 12:42 pm: Edit

This may belong in Q&A, but I think the intent and actual working of this rule might need some review, just tell me, and I'll move it:

(543.14) The limitations on Tactical Reserves say, "Units of a TRF cannot have moved via Operational, Retrograde, or Retreat Movement during that Player Turn." However, Tactical Reserves are formed during the enemy Player Turn Reserve phase (see SOP 4A), when none of the forces being formed into Tactical Reserves can do any of these things. Is this meant to be a restriction on activities during the preceding Player Turn(s), or should this rule be adjusted (to perhaps, 'may not have moved by reaction movement'...)?

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, December 25, 2011 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Supporting assignment of a 0[8H] value for the ISC HFP is that fact that most FCRs (SFB Module R6) have either 6 or 7 "FCR" cargo boxes, which is represented in F&E as a full squadron of 12 replacement fighters. The ISC HFP (SFB Module R11) has 6 "FCR" cargo boxes, plus six regular cargo boxes, which is consistent with embarking a full squadron of replacement fighter: six heavies in this case. Also, the Klingon VHP (SFB Module R11) is rated at 0[8H] and has the same cargo configuration as the ISC HFP.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, December 25, 2011 - 02:01 pm: Edit

The counters are published, so there probably won't be any change there.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, December 25, 2011 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Jean:
When able can you ask to have someone post a photo of the ISC single sided counter sheet? All my counters are in military storage --- thanks.
Chuck

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, December 25, 2011 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Turtle:
0[8H] is even better for each TUG pod; we just need to look at the SITs.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Sunday, December 25, 2011 - 04:01 pm: Edit

(709.0) General HQ: (Y186 OoB) Pallets listing includes 2xVAP. Hydrans do not have VAP pods, not being listed on the SIT nor in (709.4) Production Notes pod limits table. (May want to partially offset this by increasing available VHP pallets from 1 to the limit of 2.) -James Lowry 25 Dec 2011

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Monday, December 26, 2011 - 04:15 pm: Edit

(625.461) ROMP Assignement: This rule mentions "...ROMP units can return to their previously assigned fleets." I'm not seeing any reference as to which fleets those are. (625.462) states the contents of the six ROMP corps, and (713.0) makes no mention of them. -James Lowry 26 Dec 2011

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Tuesday, December 27, 2011 - 12:57 am: Edit

(625.B23) Planet 3912: By the general format of the scenario, this neutral zone planet should have its own note at this rule number, but there is no mention of the fate of the planet. -James Lowry 26 Dec 2011

(625.E23) Planet 1506: By the general format of the scenario, this neutral zone planet should have its own note at this rule number, but there is no mention of the fate of the planet. -James Lowry 26 Dec 2011

(625.E433) Kzinti Base and Planet Disposition: The status of Kzinti bases along the Kzinti-Lyran neutral zone is not defined. The status of planets 1105 and 1802 is not mentioned. (The first two would seem to have no PDUs by the notes on destroyed bases, but are they devastated?) -James Lowry 26 Dec 2011

(625.E433) Kzinti Base and Planet Disposition: This rule has all Kzinti bases along the Federation neutral zone as destroyed. However, when last seen (Winds of Fire, Y181 (617.B1)), the Kzinti have already rebuilt 1902 have the standard two PDUs back on 1802, and have a MB in 1803. (And another BATS and MB on the actual Klingon neutral zone, but they would be much less likely to survive.)

(625.F422) Klingon Base and Planet Disposition: The status of Klingon bases along the Klingon-Hydran neutral zone is not defined. (Though probably intact, given (617.A3) in Winds of Fire.) -James Lowry 26 Dec 2011

(625.Z423) "There is an STX, a colony base with 2xPDU and a PRD over the planet at 4916." It looks like that should read 'with the BATS in 4916." (Or maybe it was upgraded to the STX?) -James Lowry 26 Dec 2011

(625.Z423) A Romulan colony is listed in 5601, on the upper (Gorn) edge of the map. Given the planet in 5619, I believe 5617 is meant. -James Lowry 26 Dec 2011.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Thursday, January 05, 2012 - 11:55 pm: Edit

I just purchased the ISC War rulebook on e23.
I was somewhat astonished that my name was listed in the design credits. I don't recall helping out with this product, and don't feel as if I earned that recognition. Did I do something special?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 08:56 am: Edit

Randy, you probably responded in the BBS during development of certain rules. If you had even one response SVC would have deemed helpful then you'd probably get listed in the long list of credits.

By Keith D Plymale (Zaarin7) on Friday, March 09, 2012 - 03:32 pm: Edit

Is this the place for a positive feedback? ISC at last. Wooooo Hooooo. I'm one of thos folks who have waited for them since 1986. Good job to all involved and thank you.

By Graham Stewart Wardle (Tasmerlin) on Sunday, March 11, 2012 - 07:07 am: Edit

Just got my copy of ISC Wars - great product! Have a problem with the Gorn OOB in that they have no MB's or OPB's. Makes it difficult for them to score victory points. If this has been sorted out elsewhere then I apologise and can someone point me in the right direction.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, March 11, 2012 - 09:08 pm: Edit

Hmmm, you're right - off the top I'd say place one OPB in each fleet except the seventh, it gets an MB...

By Graham Stewart Wardle (Tasmerlin) on Thursday, March 15, 2012 - 02:30 am: Edit

Thanks for the reply Stewart. An OPB for the Fourth Fleet (Off-map) seems a bit generous though. Meanwhile, I am trying to understand rule 625.542. Can't help thinking that it should read "At the end of Fall Y185". The way it reads at present it looks like the non-aligned powers can run a PHASE 1B for Fall 185 as well as Spring 186? In Cordon Yankee am I correct in assuming that the PEZ runs from 5005 to 5901 and then 5901 to 6102? Also, the CEZ runs from 4905 to 5701 and includes 6101? Sorry if this is not the right area for these questions or that they have been answered elsewhere (I'm only up to CL41 at present)

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, March 15, 2012 - 09:12 am: Edit

Graham, go ahead and ask this in the Q&A thread. That is the best place to put questions such as this.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, March 31, 2012 - 06:07 am: Edit

(105.IW) 2B5 Change reference from (433.432) to (433.43). The reference for modular ships should include both SP Cruisers (433.432) and SK Destroyers (433.433). Thomas Mathews 31 Mar 2012

(105.IW) 3B2 Change reference from (433.432) to (433.43). The reference for Romulan modular ships should include both SP Cruisers (433.432) and SK Destroyers (433.433). Thomas Mathews 31 Mar 2012

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Thursday, April 26, 2012 - 01:27 pm: Edit

The detail that when into ISC Wars is phenomenal and I appreciate the effort that went into it. I had emailed many of these items back in Aug 2011 but I have not seen them in any official list so I assume I sent them to the wrong place. I also have a list of about one-and-a-half dozen misspellings or minor typos but I did not include them below.

(105.IW) 5-3C: After "other escort groups (515.15)" add "; assign Megafighters (535.31)". This text was in the Planetary Operations (105.P) version of the SOP so presumably should be in this version. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(105.IW) 5-3X3: After "cloaks (306.2) is resolved" add "; one Romulan ship may deploy assigned cloaked decoy for offensive use (538.56)". This text was in the Planetary Operations (105.P) version of the SOP so presumably should be in this version. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(105.IW) 5-6X4: Change "(522.4) - Mission 2" to "(522.42)". I suggest using (522.42) since it is more concise and that is the header on the actual rule (the rule does not start with "Mission 2"). Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(105.IW) 5-7B: Typo; change "Phase 5 - Step #" to "Phase 5 - Step 8". Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(105.IW) 5-7C: Incorrect rule reference; change (307.73) to (302.73). Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(105.IW) 6E: Add "and GCEs (521.22)" after "All players may replace fighters (501.5) and PFs (502.43)". Both the Advanced Operations SOP (105.0) and Planetary Operation SOP (105.P) allowed replacing GCE loses as if they were fighters per (521.22) during production (phase 2B4) and during retrograde movement (phase 6E). However, the SOP from ISC War (105.IW) does not list replacing GCE loses during phase 6E (but still lists it for phase 2B4) but presumably this text was dropped by mistake Note that Rule (521.22) has "All losses are replaced at the end of the player turn (for ships in supply) in the same manner as fighters" which does not quite seem to be were the SOP lists reference to this rule. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(324.222) Incorrect rule reference; change (307.8) to (308.7). Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(625.251) Incorrect rule reference; change "see (625.521)" to "see (625.551)". Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(625.585) Incorrect rule reference; change (316.0) to (314.0). Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(625.585) Part of the text for this rule is "The forces in any cordon may make more than three standard raids". I believe the text "may make more" should be "may not make more". Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(625.586) Incorrect rule reference; change (625.582) to (625.572). Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(625.A511) Adding up the income from all cordon scenarios results in 100% of the ISC income being used except during Y188S when only 80% is being used. I am guessing that for (625.A511) and (625.B511) the income on Y188S should have been the same as listed for Y188F (i.e., 10%) which would make the total 100%. The income from the cordon scenarios in Y188S is: A=0%, B=0%, C=10%, D=20%, E=20%, F=20%, Y=5%, Z=5% for a total of 80%. For Y188F it is the same except cordon A and B both have 10% income. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(625.B511) Adding up the income from all cordon scenarios results in 100% of the ISC income being used except during Y188S when only 80% is being used. I am guessing that for (625.A511) and (625.B511) the income on Y188S should have been the same as listed for Y188F (i.e., 10%) which would make the total 100%. The income from the cordon scenarios in Y188S is: A=0%, B=0%, C=10%, D=20%, E=20%, F=20%, Y=5%, Z=5% for a total of 80%. For Y188F it is the same except cordon A and B both have 10% income. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(625.D511) Change "Y188S-Y187F" to "Y187S-Y187F". This rule has the following income dates Y186F, Y188S-Y187F, and Y188S+. From this I assume that Y188S-Y187F should have been Y187S-Y187F. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(625.E) CORDON ECHO. This rule is miss-numbered as (625.0) but should be (625.E). Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(702.0) Third Fleet: Change "SWAC-H" to "SWAC-E3" so it matches text on the counter and also how it is listed in the Federation First (Home) Fleet. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(702.0) Sixth Fleet: Change "SWAC-H" to "SWAC-E3" so it matches text on the counter and also how it is listed in the Federation First (Home) Fleet. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(706.0) Third Fleet: Incorrect rule reference; change (625.Y1) to (625.Y21). Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(713.4) TP Pod: Change Year from Y175 to Y160. Both the SIT and SFB Module G3 (R13.24) list the Year in service as Y160. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(713.4) Tug Paired Pods: Change 2PFT to 2PFP to match name on counter. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

Update to Earlier Rules on page 2 (525.452): This update should have been for (523.452) not (525.452). Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(753.0) Change table to match how it is in F&E 2010; i.e., change off map minor planets from 1 to 2, capital minor planets from 8 to 7, off map major planets from 2 to 1, and capital major planets from 7 to 8. While the total number of major and minor planets does not change it will then match up with previous rules (such as F&E 2010) and how it is displayed on the large scale map. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(754.0) Add "ISC tugs get the benefit of command rating bonuses from only one pod at a time." In SFB Module G3, Annex #3, the ISC N1 note indicates that two carrier and/or battle pods will not increase the command rating any more than one will. In Advanced Operations this annex has the text: "Federation, Kzinti, Klingon, and Lyran tugs get the benefit of command rating bonuses from only one pod at a time"; so the ISC should be added to the list. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

(759.0) Per the large scale map the Pronhoula System should have 2 major and 2 minor planets. This would also match the total number of planet listed for (753.0) in F&E 2010. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

ISC Capital Cart: The Pronhoula System should have 2 major and 2 minor planets. The planets listed on the ISC Capital Cart do not match (753.0) in F&E 2010; it is missing one major and one minor planet. Per my large scale map the Pronhoula System should have 2 major and 2 minor planets. I am assuming that (753.0) in F&E 2010 is the correct version. If (753.0) in ISC Wars is the correct version, this will make the large scale map incorrect, and the ISC Capital Cart will still be incorrect since it will be missing two minor planets. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

Countersheet Indigo: HDWT: The one HDWT on the countersheet is missing the "U" on front of counter as listed on SIT. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

Countersheet Indigo: SB: The SB in the seventh row of the countersheet is missing "P" (PF flotilla) on the backside of the counter. The SB in the second to last row on the countersheet is correct. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

Countersheet Four: 2PFP+: Only two counters are needed per (713.4) and the SIT but four are provided. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012