The phrase "enters either of those provinces" in (602.12) should probably read "enters the Marquis deployment area".

Historical context: In F&E2K (and previous editions, IIRC) the Marquis set up in the two provinces and the Duke set up "within two hexes of Klingon Neutral Zone east of 10xx inclusive, except Marquis provinces".

Then in Advanced Operations the fleet deployments changed to the Marquis being "in provinces 1902 and 1803 but not within two hexes of the Klingon Neutral Zone but includes 1704", and the Duke being "within two hexes of the Klingon Neutral Zone east of 10xx inclusive, except 1704". I do not know why this was changed.

Regardless, there was now a loophole in the rules whereby 1805 was released and therefore upgradable (with the Duke's fleet), but unassably in the Marquis provinces referenced by (601.12). A friend of mine wrote a TacNote pointing this out, and you see the result in F&E2010.

(I do not know why (601.12) was not changed to reference the Marquis deployment area, nor why the alternative solution of reverting the Advanced Operation changes was impossible; either would have unambiguously solved the problem and both were advanced as possible solutions, but what you see now was deemed "better".)

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, September 13, 2012 - 02:36 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The phrase "enters either of those provinces" in (602.12) should probably read "enters the Marquis deployment area".

---

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Thursday, September 13, 2012 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Or remove the exception entirely, as it makes little sense why a Coalition fleet attacking 1805 doesn't set off the Feds, but a Coalition frigate entering 1705 and just sitting there would. Or, if the bats is destroyed, can the Coalition fleet just sit there and not set off the feds?

Perhaps maybe SFB history could fix this. Say the Feds had a horrible defeat in 1805 in a previous war with the Kzinti, and would look the other way as long as that fleet didn't linger.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, September 13, 2012 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Dave wrote:
>>The phrase "enters either of those provinces" in (602.12) should probably read "enters the Marquis deployment area". >>

I brought this up at length a year or two ago, and it never seemed to have been adequately resolved (i.e. no one ever made an official ruling).

The rules say, as noted, "enters either of those provinces". Which strikes me as incredibly clear and cut and dry. But there seems to be some exception floating around that indicates that the Coalition *can* enter one of those provinces without activating the 4th Fleet (and the Federation economy). But it doesn't actually say this anywhere in a clear way. And is the result of, IIRC, a ruling at some point that existed to prevent the Kzinti from upgrading one of the BATS in the Marquis Zone into a SB without the Klingons being able to attack it (as that one BATS is actually in the Duke's deployment zone).

The rule should either say "...enters the Marquis Deployment Zone" (which is different than "either of those two provinces") or it should be clear that entering either of those two provinces activates the Feds (and that one BATS should be removed from the Duke's deployment zone, which fixes the whole thing nicely and without the weird, non intuitive, arbitrary kludgey rule).

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 09:34 am: Edit

I think the exception has more to do with game balance than a political consideration. If Zin BATS 1805 were effectively immune to attack as part of the Marquis zone, then that's another one to two hexes that the Zin could reach deeper into Klingon space. Instead of parking a fleet at 1704 (which is commonly done) to keep the Klingons honest, they could park a fleet at 1805. While no additional major Klingon targets present themselves as a result, it does make maneuver a bit easier for the Zin, though they'd still have to go through 1707 and/or 1708 (excluded from the East fleet zone). However, a group of fast ships could reach major planet 1611 (Klegarine) (perhaps with a raid pool drone raid on a MON if present). If the planet were undefended the planet would be devastated and/or captured. This threat would not even be possible if 1704 were the only base available.

A base at 1805 also allows deeper normal raids into Klingon space.

In short, I think 1805 is allowed to be attacked for game balance issues. It's not about political issues, as they can always be explained away.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 10:48 am: Edit

Ted wrote:
>>If Zin BATS 1805 were effectively immune to attack as part of the Marquis zone, then that's another one to two hexes that the Zin could reach deeper into Klingon space. Instead of parking a fleet at 1704 (which is commonly done) to keep the Klingons honest, they could park a fleet at 1805.>>

Well, kind of? What the actual issue is is what Dave detailed above--for a very long time in the evolution of the game (until, IIRC, Advanced Operations came out), BATS 1805 was not part of the Duke's deployment zone; it was part of the Marquis Deployment Zone (which was, IIRC "Set up anywhere in the two provinces adjacent to the Fed neutral zone"), and as such, it couldn't be attacked without activating the Feds. Which worked perfectly fine for many years.

Ok, so then in Advanced Operations, the Duke's deployment zone arbitrarily included BATS 1805 that, up until then, was in the Marquis Deployment zone. Which caused a problem, in that if it was in the Duke's deployment zone, that meant that it was released when the Duke's fleet got released. Which meant that it could be upgraded to a Star Base. Which, if it was unassailable when being upgraded due to being in the protected Marquis area, was a balance problem.

All indications are that none of any of this was intentional (i.e. no one said "Hey! Let's change the Duke's deployment zone so that Marquis BATS is included!"), and was likely just an oversight/error. As no one noticed this for a while, but eventually, someone published a strategy note or something that pointed out that the Kzinti could upgrade that BATS to a SB without it being attacked by the Coalition, due to being both released by the Duke's fleet being released, and then also being in one of the protected Marquis zone provinces.

Right, so then someone (the current FEAR at the time, or possibly SVC) ruled that BATS 1805 wasn't protected by the Marquis Zone rule. Which was an arbitrary kludge to repair the problem that had just arisen.

Then the 2K10 rulebook was printed. And none of this was clearly fixed in it. The Marquis Zone rule as stated in the Wind scenario in the 2K10 rule book specifically *still* references the two *provinces* adjacent to the Fed neutral zone, and not the "Marquis Deployment" area. There is a note about the issue addressed above that is vaguely worded, specifically only indicating that if BATS 1805 is being upgraded, the Coalition can attack it (which is a vague statement, at best; it doesn't say "BATS 1805 can be attacked by the Coalition"; it says "If they Kzintis decide to upgrade BATS 1805, the Coalition can attack it").

So this is all a vague and poorly defined issue.

Yes. I realize that there are plenty of people involved in the playing of and running of this game that very clearly understand that BATS 1805 is a legal target for the Coalition at all times. But as this isn't actually what the rules say anywhere, and the rules *do* specifically say "...enters either of the two provinces adjacent to the Federation neutral zone", this is *still* officially an unclear area of the rules.

Someone needs to make an official ruling that fixes this. They could do any number of things, such as:

-Officially fix the rules on the Duke's deployment area, so that BATS 1805 is in the Marquis deployment area and isn't in the Duke's deployment area (which is originally how the rules worked anyway), which fixes everything very cleanly.

-Officially change the wording in the Wind scenario rules about the Marquis Zone and activating the Federation to say "Marquis Deployment Area" instead of "two provinces adjacent to the Federation neural zone", which is ok, but I can't see any reason to not just go back to the original intention of the rule.

-Officially change the wording of the exception in the rules for the Wind and the Marquis Zone rules to say "Hexes X and Y (and the BATS in them) are freely enterable and attackable by the Coalition" or something, which also fixes everything, but either of the other fixes is easier and cleaner.

Basically, there is ambiguity. Which a lot of people seem to think isn't ambiguous. But it still is. And could use an official, non ambiguous fix.

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 11:07 am: Edit

I completely agree with Peter here. I also have a problem in that allowing the Coalition to occupy the hex allows them to disrupt the province and take another EP from the Kzinti, from a province that was previously unasailable. The province should have remained entirely out of bounds. So what if the Kzinti could raid from it? If you want to stop them from doing that, you will have to go to (limited) war with the Feds.

Also, it is unclear where the limitation actually begins and ends. What if the Kzinti set up a mobile base in one of their empty hexes in that province, but within two hexes of the Klingon neutral zone? Could that be attacked?

There is a similar problem with what happens to the Gorn ability to enter the war if the Feds have declared war on the Klingons. It does not yet appear to have been dealt with "officially" although Chuck did provide some suggested wording changes a while back that would fix that problem. What is the status of this rule change?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 11:08 am: Edit

No argument there's rules language that should be addressed. However, my version of the rules (F&E2010) *explicitly* states that 1805 is fair game for the Coalition (very last sentence of the rule). So, whatever implied vagueness that was there was resolved clearly, at least in the form of an exception. I think the real prolem here is less about ambiguity, as it is about apparent inconsistency between the exception and the prior rule language. A slight re-word can help with consistency, but the exception for 1805 is so black letter that there's no question that the specific overrides any general in this case.

By the way, I truly don't know why upgrading 1805 to a SB would be an issue at all. The rules clearly provide that bases in unreleased areas may not be upgraded. Seems to put that issue to rest quite handily.

So, I think it did have more to do with depth of raids and operational strikes. Then again, you've been playing F&E longer than I have (counting my 13 year hiatus between 1995 to 2008) so may be the base upgrade rule in unreleased areas is more recent too.


BTW: here's a direct quote from my copy of 601.12 in F&E2010:

---

Quote:

Hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet,
so while that BATS in that hex can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation.

---

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 11:13 am: Edit

Ted:

1) 1805 can clearly be upgraded

2) IIRC, placing a mobile base in one of the empty hexes next to it is allowed, even if the area is unreleased. Could that then be attacked? It's not in 1805, so it should be safe, no?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 11:37 am: Edit

Kosta,

1) I'm not saying that BATS 1805 cannot be upgraded NOW - because the current black letter of the rule says it can be upgraded. What I was saying (or meant to say) is that back when there was a rules argument over 1805 I don't see how it could have been argued that 1805 could be upgraded. Even *back then* a BATS in an unreleased area could not be upgraded (general rule applicable to all empires with unreleased areas) - so if 1805 were in the unreleased Marquis zone then 1805 could not be upgraded *back then* (unless the rule back then explicitly allowed it - but that's not my recollection).

2) Correct. You *may* setup a mobile base in an unreleased area. You may not upgrade it. Such a base might be able to be attacked, but consequences may ensue. So, for the Zin Marquis area you could put up a MB at, say, 1802 and if I attacked it before turn 7 then doing so would activate the Fed 4th and send them to limited war.

Hex 1805 itself is explicitly excepted. So the Zin could place and upgrade a MB in hex 1805 before turn 7, but doing so doesn't seem wise as the Klingons would no doubt blow it up.

There is a smidge of doubt about 1705 in my mind. My large scale map (by Chuck Strong) has the actual words "Duke's Hold" mostly in 1705 - and IIRC both 1705 and 1805 are not "Marquis zone". However, the rule in F&E2010 only exempts 1805, so maybe it's possible to argue that 1705 is Marquis.

That being said, 1804 is *clearly* Marquis zone. So, the Zin could setup an unassailable (effectively before turn 7) MB in 1804 - but could not upgrade it. However, IMHO such a setup would be a waste. It would go down on turn 7 on all likelihood (or whever the Klinks attack the Feds) and the *only* additional target it allows you to reach that 1704 doesn't let you reach is Sherman's Planet in 1910.

But that's just personal opinion. The rules would allow it if the Zin player thought it advantageous.

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 11:53 am: Edit

Yeah, on the issue of where to setup the MB, I was thinking of 1705, but I don't have my F&E books here (at work), so I couldn't say for sure.

I just think it silly that a MB setup in 1705 would be "protected" but the BATS in 1805 can be attacked. 1705 is just as good, if not better, than 1805 for raids and other such mayhem.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Yeah, I'm like 99% sure that 1705 is fair game for the Coalition without activating the Feds.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Ted wrote:
>>"Hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet,
so while that BATS in that hex can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation.">>

Correct. Except that in conjunction with the wording of the overall rule, that specifically references the "two provinces adjacent to the Federation neutral zone", and not deployment zones, this could easily be read to mean "If the Coalition enter hex 1805, it will activate the Federtaion, as hex 1805 is in one of the provinces adjacent to the Federation neutral zone. Unless BATS 1805 is being upgraded, in which case it can be attacked."

Yes. I realize that this is an easy thing to explain one way or the other. But due to the wording of the overall rule ("...provinces adjacent to the Federation neutral zone" and not "deployment areas"), it is contradictory and thus ambiguous. At least for my money.

I'm not arguing that the rule should specifically fall one way or the other (although personally, I side with Kosta, in that for the first 10-15 years of the game's existence, hex 1805 was perfectly fine being part of the immune Marquis zone, and that worked just fine). Just that wording should be cleaned up and made considerably more specific.

By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Ted,

A) Your supposition that 1805 was removed from the Marquis for game balance is tenuous at best. While it's true that the Kzinti could attack an extra hex deeper into Klingon territory (as opposed to attacking out of 1704), there's just nothing worth attacking with that extra range. (Yes, 1611 could be hit by fast ships, but (1) it's in the Klingon Home Fleet deployment area and therefore the Klink's fault if it's under-defended; (2) any sane route to 1611 has to pass adjacent to 1509 and almost certainly through 1707, either of which could easily have been defended by the Klinks, so the fault lies with the Klinks yet again; and (3) all this has to happen before turn 8, and how many ships do you think the Kzinti are going to build and dedicate to this goal without seriously compromising the defense and/or reclamation of the rest of their territory?)

However, if attacks out of 1805 are [sarcasm]really[\sarcasm] a problem, then the correct solution would be to (1) not change the Duke's Fleet deployment area to include 1805 and futz with can/can't attack codicils, but (2) move 1707 and 1708 to the Klingon East Fleet (which would force any Kzinti attack into Klingon space from 1805 to pass adjacent to 1506 which will have defenders who can react (unless the Klingons are idiots, which isn't the preview of the rules).

Basically, the fact that 1707 and 1708 explicitly permit Alliance travel refutes your supposition, because that permission is the only thing that allows the tactic to work. (Admittedly, this would be far from the first time things were changed to address a "problem" without dealing with the underlying cause.)

B) I've already covered why 1805 became upgradable, yet untouchable. To reiterate, (a) AO changed the Duke's Fleet deployment area to include 1805 and removed 1805 from the Marquis deployment area; (b) bases are released (and therefore upgradable) with their fleet, the Duke's fleet being released on turn 1; and (c) any Coalition ship that enters provinces 1901 or 1803 triggers Fed limited war (rule 601.12). The problem didn't exist before Advanced Operations created a dichotomy between the Marquis deployment area and "the two provinces adjacent to the Federation Neutral Zone".

C) You are wrong about the Coalition being able to attack a MB being set up in 1805: the specific permission is that the Coalition can attack the [existing] BATS in 1805. (It's even arguable that the Coalition accepting the approach battle and then running away would trigger the Federation, because there would not have been a battle round that included the BATS and the Coalition would therefore not have "attacked the BATS", but merely some units in the same general area.)

The rules are generally accepted to be enabling (i.e., if it's not permitted by a rule, then you cannot do it), and under that understanding the only hex in provinces 1901 and 1803 you can enter is hex 1805 and only if you attack the BATS in that hex. (And note "the BATS", not "a BATS" or "a base".)

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Dave wrote:
>>C) You are wrong about the Coalition being able to attack a MB being set up in 1805: the specific permission is that the Coalition can attack the [existing] BATS in 1805. (It's even arguable that the Coalition accepting the approach battle and then running away would trigger the Federation, because there would not have been a battle round that included the BATS and the Coalition would therefore not have "attacked the BATS", but merely some units in the same general area.)>>

And this is exactly the ambiguity I'm talking about. This rule, as read literally, works just like Dave mentions here. It could be read less literally (which may or may not be thew intention; I suspect it is meant to be taken less literally than it could be).

That rule (601.12) needs to be clarified. Or the Marquis Zone rule needs to say "Marquis Deployment Area" rather than "Provinces". Or the Duke's deployment area needs to exclude anything in the Marquis provinces. Or something.

By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 02:27 pm: Edit

and you could advance the argument, on exactly the same basis and with exactly the same degree of merit, that "while the rules allow attacking BATS 1805 without activating the fed, entering the hex activates the fed anyway, so neener neener neener."

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Dave,

Actually, I have *no* idea why 1805 was moved to the Duke's deployment area in the first place. If had been left in Marquis, then none of this would be an issue. General rules would have prevented BATS 1805 from being upgraded, and hence it would not have had to have been made vulnerable. So my speculation has to do with *why* it changed deployment areas in the first place, effectively driving the impetus to change the rule so that the BATS can be attacked. Your statement B does not discuss this. If you are in the know, then please do enlighten me.

And my speculation is just that - speculation - I can't say if it's right. You'd have to ask SVC and/or the folks who were around when it was changed.

That being said, what WAS the difference between AO and vanilla? Answer: Raids. So, if the raid rules are added, and 1805 is a supply point for launching raids, then maybe (again maybe) raids is what caused the deployment change of hex 1805. So, I hardly think that my speculation is "tenuous at best" as you assert. While it may be wrong, it's based on an educated guess.

Finally, I am right about the Coalition being able to attack a MB in 1805 without activating the Fed. It's black letter. The rule (601.12 in F&E2010) says "hex" 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet. The rule then says "so" (as in "therefore") "while that BATS in that hex can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation." The rule is clear and unambiguous. What makes the BATS attackable is simply because it is in hex 1805. Meaning that any other Zin unit in that "hex" is also fair game without having to worry about activating the Fed. Your interpretation, which would allow *only* attacking the BATS in 1805, would require the rule to say something like "BATS 1805 is part of Duke's fleet and so can be upgraded..." - but the rule refers to the hex deployment assignment, and the BATS is vulnerable and upgradable as a consequence of the hex deployment assignment.

Anyway, it's pretty much settled that BATS 1805 is fair game for the Coalition and is upgradable. The hex is also fair game; I can even park an E4 in 1805 afterwards and continue to disrupt the province without activating the Fed. I just can't go over the line to 1704 or 1804. I haven't searched the rules for 1705, but I I'm pretty sure that 1705 is also fair game just like 1805.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 02:47 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

And this is exactly the ambiguity I'm talking about. This rule, as read literally, works just like Dave mentions here. It could be read less literally (which may or may not be thew intention; I suspect it is meant to be taken less literally than it could be).

---

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Just for the sake of comparison, I pulled out a big pile of old F+E rulebooks to look at the evolution of the Kzinti deployment areas:

-F&E 1986: Marquis Fleet: Set up on 1902 and 1803. Duke's Fleet: Deploy within 2 hexes of Klingon Neutral Zone. Marquis Zone rule: "...These ships (and the Federation 4th Fleet) are released if a Klingon unit enters either of these two provinces."

-F&E Deluxe Rulebook, 1990 rev: Marquis Fleet: Set up on 1902 and 1803. Duke's Fleet: Deploy within 2 hexes of the Klingon neutral zone, east of 10xx inclusive. Marquis Zone rule: (identical to F&E 1986, with new notation on Orion mercenaries).

-F&E 1993: Marquis Fleet: Set up in 1902 and 1803. Duke's Fleet: Deploy within 2 hexes of Klingon neutral zone, east of 10xx inclusive. Marquis Zone rule: (Identical to 1990 rules).

-F&E 2000: Marquis Fleet: Set up in provinces 1902 and 1803. Duke's Fleet: Deploy within 2 hexes of Klingon neutral zone east of 10xx inclusive, except for Marquis provinces'. Marquis Zone rule: (Identical to 1993 rules).

-F&E Advanced Operations 2003: Marquis Fleet: Set up in provinces 1902 and 1803 but not within two hexes of the Klingon neutral zone but include 1704. Duke's Fleet: Deploy within 2 hexes of Klingon neutral zone, except 1704.

-F&E 2010: Marquis Fleet: Set up in provinces 1902 and 1803 but not within two hexes of the Klingon neutral zone but include 1704. Duke's Fleet: Deploy within 2 hexes of Klingon neutral zone, except 1704. Marquis Zone rule: (Identical to 2000 rules, but with added paragraph about BATS in 1805).

Ok, so up until 2000, there was a state of clear ambiguity--the Duke's fleet deployment area included hexes that were within 2 hexes of the Klingon neutral zone but then also within the two forbidden Marquis provinces. In 2000, everything was *very* clear and unambiguous--the Marquis fleet was set up in provinces 1902 and 1803; the Duke's fleet was set up within two hexes of the Klingon neutral zone *except* for in the Marquis provinces, and the two Marquis provinces could not be entered without activating the Feds. Check. Nice. Clean. Clear.

Then in 2003, we get Advanced Ops, which introduces the wording to the Marquis Fleet deployment zone "but not within 2 hexes of the Klingon neutral zone but include 1704". And this is the wording that is ported into the 2K10 rules. Except that the Marquis Zone rules in 2K10 still specifically say "the two provinces adjacent to the Federation neutral zone" instead of "Marquis Fleet deployment area", and it all goes to heck.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Ted wrote:
>>I disagree. The last line of the rule read literally is exceptionally clear. The hex (1805) is fair game. This specific mention of the hex will override any "general" ambiguity in the prior sentences in the rule. >>

Yes, see, except that it says:

"The Marquis area remains an "unreleased fleet" until the Federation enters the war or until the Klingons invade this area, so any bases there cannot be upgraded and no new ones can be built. Hexes 1705 and 1805 are part of the Duke's fleet, so while that BATS in 1805 can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation."

So there is a lot going on here--the rule references "the Marquis area", which is, above, if defined at all, defined as "the two provinces adjacent to the Federation neutral zone". It says that 1705 and 1805 are part of the Duke's fleet, and says that if BATS 1805 is *upgraded*, an attack on it will not activate the Federation. It does not say what will happen in the case of an attack on it if it is *not* being upgraded.

Again, I'm not trying to argue that this rule should be read one way or the other--I certainly see how someone could read it and say "BATS 1805 is open to attack at all times". I also see how someone could read it in the way I'm suggesting. Especially given that the preceding paragraph specifically says that if Coalition units enter either of the two *provinces* (that BATS 1805 is in one of), the Fed are activated--I'm arguing that the rule is poorly worded and needs to be clarified.

The F&E 2000 rules were perfectly clear and lacked any ambiguity at all. I have no idea why, in Advanced Ops things were changed and made wonky, and then that was ported into 2K10 and made things messy. But for my money, the 2000 rules made infinitely more sense.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Actually, "the Marquis area" is fairly clearly the 'Marquis setup area', which is defined in (705.0):

Set up in provinces 1902 and 1803 but not within two hexes of Klingon Neutral Zone but includes 1704.

By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Ted,

---

Quote:

I disagree. The last line of the rule read literally is exceptionally clear. The hex (1805) is fair game. This specific mention of the hex will override any "general" ambiguity in the prior sentences in the rule.

---

---

Quote:

Hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet, so while the BATS can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation.

---

hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet so, while the BATS can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation

hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet, so while the BATS can be upgraded a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Dave,

---

Quote:

Hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet, so while the BATS can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation.

---

---

Quote:

Hence, unless (503.4) has removed or otherwise qualified the phrase "entered the War", if the Klingons do not attack the Feds on T7 and the Feds go to limited war to support the Kzinti, then the Marquis Fleet (and its deployment area) will still not be released until either the Coalition invades it or the Klingons and Federation are at War. Again, you can't have it both ways.)

---

---

Quote:

The F&E 2000 rules were perfectly clear and lacked any ambiguity at all. I have no idea why, in Advanced Ops things were changed and made wonky, and then that was ported into 2K10 and made things messy. But for my money, the 2000 rules made infinitely more sense.

---

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 06:25 pm: Edit

Ted wrote:
>>"The Marquis Zone consists only of province 1802 (hexes 1801, 1802, 1901, 1902, and 2001) plus hexes 1704, 1803, and 1804. The Marquis fleet sets up in the Marquis zone. Except for 6 ships (which must include a CC but may not include AUXes or other non-ship units), the Marquis fleet is released if the Klingons enter the Klingon/Kzini neutral zone or Kzinti space. If any Coalition unit enters the Marquis zone, then the Federation 4th fleet is released immediately and may operate in Kzinti territory, plus the Federation goes to limited war to support the Kzinti." >>

That totally works. And if that is what the designers think is appropriate, they should totally make it say that. I'd be totally ok with that.

That being said, I can't for the life of me see why the wording from the F&E2000 rules needed to be changed (i.e. the Marquis Fleet deployment area is defined as the same as the inviolable Marquis Zone--those two full provinces--and the Duke's Fleet deployment area is defined as specifically not including those hexes in the Marquis Zone, and everything is cut and dry and doesn't require wonky hex specifications) and would rather see it go back to that. But barring that, your wording works perfectly fine.

So yeah! Go clarity!

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 06:32 pm: Edit

James wrote:
>>Actually, "the Marquis area" is fairly clearly the 'Marquis setup area', which is defined in (705.0):>>

Well, except that "setup area" isn't a defined term in the rules, and in the immediately preceding paragraph, an "area" that is referenced is the two provinces adjacent to the Federation neutral zone (and no "setup area" is referenced at all).

If the rule in question wanted to refer to the "Marquis Fleet deployment/setup area", it could certainly do that. But it doesn't.

Again, I'm not claiming the this rule certainly works in a particular way. I'm simply indicating that it is confusing. And needs to be officially and specifically clarified/errataed.