Thought I would ask the general public before rolling this over into the official Q&A (in case I am just blind).

Q1. When in the sequence of play does a player roll for Diplomatic chance at rule (540.251) influencing a neutral zone planet? Is there a specific step for this?

The Diplomacy rule (540.251) simply says during the Economic Phase.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, April 01, 2013 - 01:08 pm: Edit

Yes, you can scuttle a ship right after capturing it to prevent pursuit, see the sequence of play in the updated 2010 rule book (or ISC WAR).

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, April 01, 2013 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Lar,

Interesting question that I am trying to understand... so this is not me being snarky!

Why does it matter where in econ phase it appears?!

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, April 01, 2013 - 06:24 pm: Edit

Lar, the answer is (105.IW) Phase 1C3.

---

Quote:

1C3: Determine income from Economic Points (430.1) and XTPs (523.12); may transfer EPs from a newly connected Partial Supply Grid to the main grid (413.44); scrap ships (447.5); calculate and apply exhaustion effects (447.2). Roll for diplomatic actions (540.251).

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, April 01, 2013 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Mike, my guess is that it matters a lot relative to the declaration of war (DoW). DoW happens at the instant you take some action that creates a state of war, wherever that action happens to fall in the SoP. For the Klingons, activation of the IWR on turns 7+ results in a DoW on the Federation. So, if the Klingons had diplomats at the two neutral planets bordering the Feds, do those diplomats get one final attempt to negotiate a conversion, or has DoW happened and they are permanently at their neutral (or Fed converted) state?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 12:32 am: Edit

Lar:

Link:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/F&E_SoP.pdf

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 08:20 am: Edit

Could the Klingons decide NOT to activate the IWR on turn 7 (leaving it to start activating T8) in order to not have a DOW happen until they refuse internment in the Fed-Kli neutral zone?

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 10:02 am: Edit

I think folks have things slightly backwards. A DoW on or by a third major power starts the activation of the IWR, not the other way around. Until at war with three bordering major powers, the Klingons cannot begin IWR activation. Thus, IWR activation cannot _cause_ a state of war. Note specifically the statement:
=====
The IWR can move and fight immediately; it does not pay for activation or receive free strategic movement.
=====
which makes IWR activation different from mothball unit activation.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 11:39 am: Edit

The IWR Squadrons could use the free strategic movement of the Klingon empire under the strategic movement rules making the point mute.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 11:54 am: Edit

"moot". "mute" means they're silent. ;)

As for the IWR, activating the IWR on turn 7 is in effect a DoW on the Federation, as you have to be at war with 3 empires to activate it. I don't think the DoW is a precondition. You may activate the IWR on turn 7+, but that act creates the DoW during the production phase. I definitely agree the IWR is not your ordinary mothball, it has its own rules.

I believe SVC himself had a ruling sometime in the last year or two in which he basically said a DoW happens at the instant something takes place that results in a war status. So, the actual DoW takes place at whatever point in the SoP the offending action occurred.

Too lazy to track it down, though.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Chuck: Thanks

Mike P: We were playing on Saturday and the question came up as to when the die roll was made to influence a NZ planet. The Fed are at 0% during this particular turn, however the reason was that going forward I wanted to know when the planetary econ would begin to "count" in the SOP vs the success of the die roll. Mostly though the reason for the question...RUST.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 01:12 pm: Edit

Ted:

Backwards logic. War with any three major neighboring powers is the _precondition_ for release of the IWR. (ignoring the "enemy near the Klingon Capital" release condition) Therefore, the IWR cannot be released to cause a state of war with the Federation on turn 7, since the precondition for its release HAS NOT BEEN MET (emphasis). The state of war with the Federation _must_ come first. If A is required in order for B to happen, you can't claim that doing B will cause A to happen.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 01:42 pm: Edit

Another key point can be found in rule 602.4 discussing Federation limited war support for the Kzinti
==========
However, the Federation is not "at War" with the Klingons. If the Klingons do not move any ships into Federation territory or into neutral hexes adjacent to Federation territory, these special "Limited War" rules remain in effect.
==========
Thus, in the limited war case, the Klingons do not enter a full war status, and under 602.48 cannot release the IWR, until they _move forces_ in such a way as to create a state of war. Under 654.5A, the Klingons can even launch raids in Federation territory without causing full war and triggering release of the IWR.

If the Klingons cannot release the IWR to CAUSE a transition from limited to full war, it seems illogical that they could do so to cause a transition from peace to full war.

If a silver bullet is needed to kill a werewolf, that does not imply that killing a werewolf produces a silver bullet.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 01:57 pm: Edit

I suppose it's reasonable to argue that the Klingons first must execute a DoW by, say, raiding or otherwise invading Federation territory. Then the IWR is released as the DoW being a precondition. The sequence of play doesn't mention the IWR, so I guess they show up during operational movement or raids when a DoW is actually made.

It makes little difference from a practical perspective, I guess. Turn 7 the Klingons invade the Federation by executing a special raid or E&S mission, or by operational movement into Federation territory, and then the first IWR squad just appears and can move during operational or strat itself. But for the diplomacy question, that's the same as the IWR appearing during production.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 01:59 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

If a silver bullet is needed to kill a werewolf, that does not imply that killing a werewolf produces a silver bullet.

---

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 05:18 pm: Edit

Steve once told a story of a SFB group he visited; they invited him in to play. As each player revealed what ship they had chosen, the Klingon players would stand up and declare "My drone racks each fire one per turn" (or something like that, I can't remember the story exactly). Steve inquired as their behavior, he was pointed towards a rule that says "Unless declared otherwise, each pair of Klingon drone racks only fire one per round". The Klingons were simply declaring otherwise!

I think we're kinda in a similar situation here. The Klingon player does not have to stand up and officially declare war with the Federation; they need only take an action that creates such a war. Invading the Federation, raiding (I think), crossing the border in any way... all precipitate a declaration of war. But I don't think you even need to actually attack; you may simply declare war and thus be at war, without ever actually sending in a single ship.

Therefore, Ted's right: activation of the IWR does in fact precipitate a declaration of war, even though in game terms the declaration of war is needed to activate the IWR. In effect, by activating the IWR, the Klingon player only skipped the step of standing up and openly declaring war.

Behind the scenes, your diplomats are handling the paperwork, and creating that silver bullet for you, and making your drone racks each fire once per round.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Kevin:

See the cite above from 602.4. At least for the case of going from limited to full war, the rule explicitly requires the actual hostile movement of Klingon forces to achieve the switch.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 06:51 pm: Edit

Ahhhh... now I get what you're saying. Ok, I stand corrected, thank you.

By the way, when I do invade... "I declare that all my ships are B10's."

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Why the question about IWR and DoW and why does it matter? My shields are up for some reason.....

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, April 03, 2013 - 08:04 am: Edit

Well I suppose things like this have concerned me. If the Klingons have to DOW the feds BEFORE they begin op movement then fed fleets get released, and the feds can react to movement that goes on entirely in Klingon territory. So if as the Klingon player you have some movements on the Fed border you need to make before you cross the NZ you would prefer you not be at war just yet to prevent anything from possibly reacting. Its unlikely to matter as what fed player is putting new construction at border BATS.

I know as the Hydrans I have used this before to make some moves along the Hydran Klingon border on Turn 3 that the Klingons cannot react.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 03, 2013 - 10:26 am: Edit

Chuck, the question about IWR and DoW has to do with diplomacy, at least for me and for the other guy thinking about it. If the IWR is released during the production phase, then that might constitute a DoW, thereby preventing diplomacy rolls on the neutral planets bordering the Feds and Klingons. However, that appears not to be a problem.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, April 03, 2013 - 08:22 pm: Edit

Ad hocs:

"their offensive value is reduced to one-half of the printed factor (round fractions down)"

"or by three"

Seems in your face straight forward...the AF used in combat for an Adhoc equals the printed AF/2 rounded down OR AF - 3.

Player must choose the lesser value (never less than zero). Where is the disconnect?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, April 03, 2013 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Yeah, I pointed that out, but my opponent disagrees.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 07:35 am: Edit

Lawrence,

No disconnect.

I asked Joe on the phone yesterday what the ComPot of and Ad-Hoc CW would be. Without skipping a beat, he said "4".

Mike Parker thought 4 and then upon reading the extract agreed that it was 3.

I thought 4.

In many games and over the years everyone I've ever played with has used 4. I've seen online games and been to Origins and seen 4 used.

I used the ad-hoc a few times before that particular battle, and Richard didn't bring it up, nor Ted nor Mike.

So, granted that a bunch of us are illiterate, I looked at Fighter Operations to see the text, and sure enough it says the same thing.

I don't have carrier war anymore (I wish I did), so I don't remember if that text was different or not (which may have led to our thinking that it was 4) or whether we simply have read it wrong for 20 years.

So, my issue is not with the wording, and frankly I don't care about it being 3 or 4. What I'm not sure about is whether or not it was intended that way, regardless of what the wording says. As a staff guy, you know that sometimes the words can actually directly say something, and then a ruling says "no way". Heck, I had a tac note that was perfectly legal (The Federation Wall) and was then told that it wasn't once the rules were clarified. Heh, still getting over that one. It's one of the reasons I don't do tac notes.

So, I'm just trying to ascertain if this is a situation that there is a disconnect between the wording and the practice. Certainly a lot of players I've known have used 4 so I just want to be sure that 3 is what was intended all along.

Nice thing about this is that it doesn't slow down the game the way the fighting retreat thing did.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled massacre.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 07:49 am: Edit

I didn't bring it up because I didn't actually notice it. As soon as I did, I pointed it out. I am not sure how this is relevant to any ruling.