Archive through November 14, 2013
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A:
Archive through November 14, 2013
(511.531) The combat value of the two groups must be as equal as possible. Any odd ship or points can be distributed by the Defender.
(511.54) STEP 4: The Defending Player takes his static fleet and deploys it in the boxes of the first column in any or all of the system boxes; he can divide the ships or put them all in one system. Each ship/group can only be in one system. (Defense- limited units must be assigned to specific planets.) These units cannot leave the system they are deployed in.
There are the rule references. The combat value must be evenly divided between static and mobile forces. Fighter factors on ships are being counted in this. You have ruled that the fighter factors on the ships are always transferable, regardless of whether they are from ships in static or mobile forces.
So if one CVS is put in static and one is put in mobile, 16 ComPot (10 for ship + 6 fighters) is being put into each group. That is an even distribution of ComPot between static and mobile. However, with the ruling that fighter factors can be transferred from static ships to mobile ships between rounds, the CVS in the mobile force would end up potentially having 22 ComPot (10+6+6) and the CVS in the static force effectively has 10.
That means that the ComPot of fighters assigned to ships can move from static to mobile.
So my question is whether the ComPot of ship based fighters is never considered when determining static vs. mobile forces or does that extra ComPot that can move need to be accounted for in dividing up the forces.
1) Can a web caster be used on a carrier with escorts? The rule states something to the effect of carrier escorts operate normally.
2) If so, does it affect just the carrier or the carrier and it's fighters?
Uh, Pete, just what was the question?
After the inital setup, the sides will probably never be equal again (since only steps 5-8 are repeated)...
Pete:
Quote:(511.537) Carriers must be divided as evenly as possible, both
by type and by the total number of fighter factors. Escorts can be
considered equal to the base hull and the player can probably
arrange to have adequate escorts with each carrier. In an extreme
case when a player had only two carriers and two escorts,
he would put one of each in each half, which might make it impossible
to form “normal” carrier groups (515.0).
FEDS SENDS
I do not believe there was ever an after action report completed for ISC Wars. I know there is the F&E ISC War After Action topic on the board but was looking for something that been finalized. If one has been completed has it been published anywhere? If there is not one is there ever going to be? Thanks.
Chuck,
Not sure why you quoted that rule - it's the point I was making.
Stewart,
The point is not that they will not be equal after startup. The point is that they aren't even equal at startup because the combat value of fighter factors is de facto mobile even if assigned to the static fleet.
You assign a CVS to a static fleet and it must remain with the static fleet unless it retreats or all defenses in the capital hex are destroyed. But the fighters on the CVS can go anywhere.
I'm not clear on what political rule (as Mike referred to) would keep the CVS in a certain place but allow it's fighter group to go anywhere .
511.54) STEP 4: The Defending Player takes his static fleet and deploys it in the boxes of the first column in any or all of the system boxes; he can divide the ships or put them all in one system. Each ship/group can only be in one system. (Defense- limited units must be assigned to specific planets.) These units cannot leave the system they are deployed in.
The rule says units cannot leave the system they are deployed in. Fighters are units as well. The rule seems pretty specific to me.
The rule says units cannot leave the system they are deployed in. Fighters are units as well. The rule seems pretty specific to me.
That also means they CAN fill a carrier in the SAME system, doesn't it...
One more thing, my copy of (511.54) [2KX] says 'ships' not 'units' plus (511.58) also says 'ships' (mobile and non-mobile)...
What?
In Step 4: Divide the ships on combat value seems to mean (and have always meant) divide the ships up on the "printed" combat value not the contrived situation of sending fighters forth.
Let us not start driving down the road of combat "value".
Placement of Police Ships
(FEDS responses in GREEN.)
There was a question on this back in 2004 - but I don't think it was clearly clarified - or the consequence fully thought of.
Basically, I feel this rule has significantly altered the effects of the game - and made it much more easier to get ships back into supply - which may not have been the intent of the game designers.
The question is two fold
1) If an Empire has lost it's capital hex (so other than the Klingons and Tholians, the capital is moved to the Off Map area) - can you place a Police Ship (531.12) in a hex adjacent to the Off Map area, which is adjacent to an Enemy ship (which is on map) and the hex you place the Police Ship in, has no friendly ships or units adjacent to it (it has already been clarified the Off Map and on Map hexes are not adjacent). FEDS: Cite reference please.
Currently - supply can flow into the Hex from off map - but can't proceed any further (but the Police Ship then changes it - it was confirmed you can't 'daisy chain' Police ships into further hexes). FEDS: Cite reference please.
Example - Hydrans Capital is in the Old Colonies - Coalition ships are in 118 - and no Allied ships are within 3 hexes of 118. Can a Police Ship be placed in 117?
2) By placing the Police Ship in 117 - it puts say 75% of the Hydran navy - back in supply (which would otherwise be out of supply). This is due to the additional supply/fighter check in Steps 2B3 and 3B1).
It does not seem logical - that ships cut off on day X, are suddenly back in supply on day x+1 (to 183, as the turn is 6 months), due to a Single Police Ships suddenly turning up
The effect is that once it was difficult to cut someone off from supply - and with the introduction of fighting retreats, it made it more difficult to cut forces off from supply - but the calling up of Police Ships, had made it nearly impossible to keep those ships cut off from supply.
This may (or may not) have been an intention of the game - but it doesn't seem to have any logical sense to it (i.e. the Weakest ship in the game, suddenly being the most effective for supplying cut off fleets).
One simple and logical solution would be to remove the second supply/fighter check in Phase 3
FEDS: I cannot see ADB doing this and I cannot support it
(as if I remember correctly, it was confirmed raids would NOT alter supply - as 314.18 was previously queried). FEDS: Cite "confirmation" please.
Thanks
Q312.11 Can Conversion During Repair (425.2) be used to convert a qualified standard ship to a stasis ship, e.g. D7 to D7A?
Why not? The D7A base hull is the D7, adding the SFG package is a 3 point conversion per (312.11). The CDR would save you the 1 Ep. Just like a D6>D6D conversion except that the D7>D7A conversion consumes a SFG package from your pool.
Q424.35 DEPOT (Unused Capacity). The Kzinti have a crippled DN and FF in the offmap area at the beginning of the turn. The depot has a crippled BC in the holding area.
It seems strange the ships already in the hex cannot go directly into the 4th position (if empty) without having to spend a turn in the holding area (as they actually moved into the depot hex on the previous turn in operational movement, before any ships on that turn that were crippled in combat did). In a game I had with other players, one player contacted Chuck Strong who replied that you COULD send a crippled ship directly into such a slot if it was already in the depot hex.
Can I get confirmation that this is possible (in an official ruling)?
From the Q&A files:
Quote:The appeal is SUSTAINED by FEDS: Empires with multiple depot repair tracks may send one eligible crippled ship per turn PER HOLDING POOL TRACK to avoid wasting capacity of multiple tracks.
Additional FEDS ruling: Once a crippled ship is placed in a DLR holding box, it cannot be removed from DLR and repaired using any other repair method. (The DLR teams begins a irreversible cannibalization process once a ship enters DLR that is abstracted into the game system; the salvage option in (424.34) still applies).
Yes, but that doesn't address my question.
If a crippled ship (let's say a Kzinti FF) is in the offmap (where the depot is) at the start of the turn, can it go directly to the first empty position (in the FF track in this case) rather than have to spend a turn in the holding box?
I ask because the SOP in ISC war says that crippled ships in the depot hex enter the holding box at the end of that phase. If the #4 box was empty at the start of the turn, I am asking if the holding box can just be bypassed in this particular case (as the crippled ship in my example entered the depot hex on the previous turn, prior to combat).
RBE - this is a case of asking the wrong question, you should be asking when one can place a crippled ship into the holding box (ie Phase 7-10) as opposed to trying for something else...
IF the first box of a given track is empty then a crippled ship may be placed in the first box provided that the crippled ship in question is in the depot hex (for most empires this is the off map area).
Stewart, with all due respect, please don't tell me what question I can ask.
Turtle, please give the rule that allows this.
The appeal and the subsequent modification of the holding box allowing crippled ships to move directly to the first box in the track to be begin the 4 turn journey through the depot are the result of the original poor wording of the rule and Q&A. The holding box in effect is a convenient storage area for those ships lost in combat that subsequently survive under (424.33) and (424.35). This gives the option for standard crippled ships to be repaired via the DLR rules (424.0), repaired via the standard repair rules (420.0), or kept in a crippled state till the next turn.
FEDS
OK - pulled these bits together -
First Cite - 411.33 confirms Off Map and On Map are not adjacent - and the following appears to confirm this (although I didn't see the Warbook entry the first time I searched as I didn't search under 411.33)
Quote from Archive 2004
"Nick, a question regarding Police Ship placement (Rule 531.12). Here is the situation: Coalition ships are present in 1601 and 1801, and no Kzinti unit is in 1702. Can a Police Ship be placed in 1701 (which is vacant)? My thought is that a supply route cannot exist into that hex since 411.31 is in force by 411.33, and so it is not in supply for purposes of 531.12. Thanks.
By John Conniff (Johnconn) on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:05 am: Edit
A question which may, or may not, have been posed or answered.
I'll use a specific example:
The Kzinti have lost their capital and so their Main Grid originates from Off Map now.
If there are coalition ships in 1601 and 1801, and *no* Alliance ships/units in 1701 *or* 1702, can a Police Ship be placed in 1701 during Kzinti Production?
That is, is 1701 considered a hex in supply from the main supply grid?
I *know* from 411.31 that 1701 is not a valid hex *through* which to draw a supply route. But is 1701 itself in supply?
Thanks,
John "
Initially, I couldn't find an answer but just found this (in Warbook Archive 17/08/06) - just found it - didn't see it in my first search.
Second Cite
"
Alan De Salvio: Nick, a question regarding Police Ship placement (Rule 531.12). Here is the situation: Coalition ships are present in 1601 and 1801, and no Kzinti unit is in 1702. Can a Police Ship be placed in 1701 (which is vacant)? My thought is that a supply route cannot exist into that hex since 411.31 is in force by 411.33, and so it is not in supply for purposes of 531.12. Thanks.
ANSWER (Nick): Makes sense to me, the hex is not in supply so no police ship can be called up there. ?
No further comment needed (Tim Losberg 5/22/06) "
Third Cite - 314.18 (further explanation first of all)
When AO was produced - the basic rules were 2K.
Supply checks where done in Step 1 for repairs, Step 2 for Fighters and Step 3 for fighters - and there was nothing the enemy could do - to alter supply from Step 1 to Step 3.
Therefore, 314.18 would seem to confirm that raids would not affect Step 1 to Step 3 supply for either side?
To Cite the confirmation therefore, a 314.18 search finds
"By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 11:13 am: Edit
In any case, rule (314.18) seems to imply that supply is not evaluated (or re-evaluated) in the raid phase at all, so even if you changed supply routes by reaction somehow, supply doesn't get reevaluated until after the raid phase is over. So supply status from the start of the turn must still be in force. "
(none relevant info removed)
This seems to have been reconfirmed -
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, October 15, 2012 - 01:50 am: Edit
Ref: Q314.241
Facts:
Raid ships cannot pursue after the one combat round (including crippled slow units); See (314.244).
Raid ships cannot block or open supply lines; see (314.18).
Ruling by FEDS:
Raid ships cannot be used to pin any other unit during a raid. They are in no position to pin other units as their raid time on station is extremely limited and narrow (that is why only ONE unit can react to one raid ship -- there is simply not enough time for more than one unit to react to a raid ship).
Summary
I think I have found 'part of the problem' - rules have been confirmed - and later Rule Changes potentially mean other rules need to change.
For example - the AO rule of 314.18, it may have been that it should have been 'deleted' when the SoP has been updated - adding new Supply check points - as a player who is raided - which kills a key ship (blocking supply to the enemy or keeping supply to friendly force) could argue that the specific Rule overrules the SoP?
Nick's answer after the second Cite paragraph currently states the hex isn't in supply (which seems to be the logical answer - and there was no appeals or changes on Nick's answer) - so I am happy to leave things as they are.
Clarifying 314.18 in the Warbook might be a good idea though 
Thanks
I would like to appeal the following ruling:
Quote:Q302.742 My opponent has a fleet consisting of some crippled units and 5 LAVs, 4 SAVs, 4 SAFs, 4FHL, 3FTL, 5FTS. He then retreats. I choose not to pursue his non-slow units and attack these auxiliary units conducting slow unit retreat. He has more units than can fit in a battle force. How is this battle conducted?
A302.742 He forms a legal battle force as do you and you resolve your damage on the units in the battle force. Since this is a non-pursuit battle (scouts, drone ships, etc are allowed) only the units in the battle force are subject to damage.
As a first basis for appeal, even though the battle force is formed as a non-pursuit force, the *actual* context is that this is a pursuit battle. Thus, the justification of "non-pursuit battle" is, I believe, incorrect.
As a second basis for appeal, this ruling has some (I think) unintended consequences. For example, I recently attacked a SAF park including 8 SAFs. These are the only slow units in the hex. The opponent declines approach, and on round 1 gives each SAF one large and one small escort. I score enough damage to cripple one SAF group. Opponent then retreats. Citing the fact that an SAF has a command rating of 0, and further citing the above ruling, the opponent then states that he must drop the escorts since they cannot be commanded. The opponent then retreats. As SAFs have a command rating of 0, the opponent puts up ONLY the crippled SAF during slow pursuit and cites the above ruling for the proposition that ONLY the one single crippled SAF is eligible to be killed. (As an aside during regular pursuit, the opponent is forced to put up the crippled escorts for the slaughter, but this is of small consolation to the attacking player hoping to save his capital on the following opponent turn).
Thus, under the current ruling, a hex that contains ONLY SAFs will never lose more than 2 SAFs (maximum, one during regular combat, one during slow pursuit), even if many SAFs are present. This result appears, at least to me, to be unfair given that 100 attacking ships were in the hex to pursue all of those very slow SAFs during retreat.
As a third basis of appeal, I propose that this ruling creates what feels like an inconsistency between regular pursuit (where cripples are required to participate) and slow pursuit (where at least one slow unit is required to participate). In regular pursuit the pursuing player may attack, using directed damage, as many crippled ships as he wants within the damage he generated. Further, all crippled ships are eligible for directed damage, even those cripples not on the line.
However, as it stands ONLY the slow units on the line are subject to damage, and (perhaps even if crippled slow units are present) ONLY one slow unit may be attacked using directed damage.
I propose that it makes more sense to say that during slow pursuit all slow units are subject to directed damage (but not damage that is taken without directing), and also that all slow units are eligible for directed damage regardless of whether they are on the line.
A fourth basis for appeal is that I believe there is another unintended consequence of the ruling. Using this ruling, a player is encouraged to escort all slow units that may be escorted with a large and a small escort. Thus, if a player has multiple AUX CVs and/or SAFs in the hex, then such units should be escorted as heavily as possible (of course not all slow units are escortable).
What happens is that on slow pursuit, even though supposedly more ships can be added to the pursuer's line as a result of having escorts, in practice the command limit of the pursuing fleet in slow pursuit is the real limit on what goes after the slow units. Escorts cannot command, so you may be looking at a command rating of say, 6, for a LAV leading a pursued force. The player then puts up two other escorted AUX CVs or SAFs. The pursuing player can only direct on one group, and in may cases letting the damage fall will only cripple the line (maybe kill one or two ships). Of course, the pursued player runs the risk of line annihilation, but he at least can pick generic CWs and FFs that he doesn't care about and end up preserving all of those SAFs and other slow units since they cannot be damaged unless they are on the slow pursuit line. This result is, to me, unfair and unrealistic.
Therefore, I believe that the ruling should be overturned. Instead, I believe that all slow units should be attackable by directed damage on the slow pursuit line, even if not on the line. I also believe that the overall context of the rules indicate that the enemy may direct on more than one slow unit during the slow pursuit battle, just as the enemy may direct on more than one cripple during the regular pursuit battle.
My thanks for your consideration.
Q302.2 (action with bases) in view of 302.323 (certain units required in the battle force) and 302.742 (slow retreat). What is the proper procedure to handle a combat hex that involves SAFs and slow units? To make the question more specific, please advise as to whether the following actions are legal: A combat hex contains two large fleets, once belonging to player A (the defending player) and player B (the attacking player). Player A also has 6 SAFs, 3 LAVs, and 2 SAVs in the hex. There are no other bases or base-like units in the hex. Neither side has cripples in the hex to start.
Player A notes that under 520.5 SAFs are treated as convoys and that under 302.211 convoys are treated as "bases." Player B notes that 302.2122 convoys are designated as to their location with respect to other "bases" and cannot be sheltered by the "excluded base" in 302.2123. Both players agree that these two rules taken together mean that one SAF will be treated as the "base" and the other SAFs will be co-located with the "base".
Both players also agree that under 302.22 an approach battle is now required. Player A accepts the required approach battle. Player B briefly asserts that Player A *must* include the SAFs in the approach battle under 302.323 (under flagship selection rules) convoys, and hence SAFs, are required to be in the battle force during the approach battle. However, player A notes that this rule references 302.231, which is part of the "base battle" portion, sub-step 2B of the sequence of play. Thus, player A asserts that 302.323 does not apply to the *approach* battle during 302.22, sub-step 2A of the sequence of play. Player B believes that this counter is reasonable and relents.
Both players consult the sequence of play and note that step 5-2A3 says to move to phase 5, step 3 but do not include the base. Under the battel force determination rules both players determine they are in supply, small scale combat is not appropriate, and assign escort groups (step 5-3C). Both players assign carrier escorts to numerous carriers in the hex. Player A (who happens to be Klingon) also assigns a D7 and an F5L to serve as ad-hoc escorts for each of the 8 SAFs (so 8 groups of {SAF,D7,F5L}. Player A also assigns an AD5 and an F5E to escort each of the LAVs and SAVs.
The rest of the combat sequence is followed, and the approach battle is fought. Under the prior analysis the SAFs are not included in the battle force during the *approach* battle. Dice are rolled, damage is assigned, and play continues. Player B (the attacker) does more damage than player A during the approach battle. NShips are killed and fighters are destroyed, but no ships are crippled.
Because player B did more damage, player B decides to press to the "base" under 308.31. However, player A points out that player B has gotten too excited to kill the SAFs and jumped the gun. Instead, after the approach battle of round 1, player A decides to retreat. Player B, frustrated, agrees that retreat is player A's right.
As there are no cripples, the only pursuit is slow pursuit. Player B assembles a powerful line for slow pursuit, putting up his very best units and managing a line of 150 compot and 5 EW. Player A cannot select SAFs as flagships. Instead, player A is required to use an LAV as a flagship as there are three of them and they have the highest command rating, noting that the D7s cannot be flagships as they are escorts. Player A elects to keep all escorts with all slow units, per 302.742. While Player B could add more ships to the initial slow pursuit force, because there are no cripples this rule has no practical effect in this case as the size of the slow pursuit force is limited by the command rating of the DN in player B's force under the same rule.
With a command rating of 6, player A puts up a line of two LAV groups (2*{LAV,AD5,F5E}), excluding 6 fighters so as not to exceed the 18 fighter maximum. One command slot is left empty. Theoretically, as there are plenty of ships, this command slot would have to be filled, but because all defending units are escorted there is no way to fit a single unit into the final command slot. So, player A's final compot is 40, with 0 EW.
However, all slow units are combined into a single battle, per 302.742D. Thus, all SAFs, LAVs, and their corresponding escorts are available for directed damage. SAFs are also required to be in the battle force under 302.323, but they are still escorted.
Dice are rolled, with player B picking both BIRs to be 4, per 304.41. All three dice are "6", meaning battle intensity is 10, player A getting an effective result of 4 due to the EW shift. Player A scores 40% of 46, which is 18 damage. Player B takes this damage on the 18 fighters he brought to the battle. Player B, in turn, scores 50% of 150, or 75 damage.
Desperate to kill an SAF, player B spends 60 of that damage to kill an SAF group (SAF, D7, F5L). The other 15 damage falls, and player A elects to destroy 15 fighters from the LAV groups.
Changing the facts slightly, had player B instead rolled a "1", then the damage would have been 35% of 150, or 52. Because 60 is required to kill an SAF group outright, this option is no longer possible. Believing that crippling a SAF under the circumstances is not helpful, player B decides to let the damage fall. Player A cripples both LAV groups (36) and takes the rest of the damage in fighters (16).
Change the facts again, player B did roll a 6, scoring 75 damage. However, believing that he will do more damage overall lets the damage fall. Self killing both LAV groups and the fighters takes 72 damage. As the SAF groups must be part of the line, player A also cripples a F5L to resolve the last 3 damage.
Note that in any case player B could only direct on one group, because no units started crippled.
Sorry for the long question, but I want to make sure that these rules interactions are handled correctly. Thanks.
OK clarification time. Apparently there have been contradictory rulings when it came to Commando Raids. Both from 2006:
Quote:May - June 2006 Archive
Q5) A 2006 ruling states that a ship making a commando raid (and coming within 5 SFB hexes of the planet or base by definition) cannot be intercepted or otherwise reacted to except by the planet or base itself, in contrast to a ship making a normal raid against the same target (perhaps at extreme weapons range) or a group launching fighters and/or drones at a presumably much greater distance. I believe this is counter-intuitive and not the intent of the rule, and I appeal this ruling. I suggest the commando raiders should face an interception combat as would any other special raider.
A5) Commando Raids: (320.42) looks specific in only allowing the fixed defenses to fight the commando ship. However, I think that the commando actually has to survive one round of combat in order to get that G attack, as (314.25) is referenced at it has one round of combat before the raider can do it's thing.
AND
Quote:January - Feburary 2006 Archive
And when the combat does take place what units would the Kzinti use in any battle prior to the "G" attack? Would they only have the 6 fighters reacted from the base, OR would they have 18 fighter factors (6 ff's from the BATS plus the 12 ff's from the PDU's)? Or would the group fight one PDU as a whole unit (compot 9), then fight the other with a "G"? Or am I completed misunderstanding the intent of the rule and the combat is completely different...?
ANSWER: As per (320.42), only the fixed defenses fight. Thus it is sort of pointless to react something (or call up a police ship) to a commando raid as due to (320.42) you simply cannot stop them that way, such a unit cannot interact with the raiders. The way to block commando raids is with Monitors (320.46). Without a Monitor, IGCEs are great as they can affect the G attack roll and can be given up in place of damage.
The reason for the attacker to bring consorts is that with only a commando ship, it would be crippled or destroyed by the fixed defenses, degrading or eliminating the G factor prior to its ground combat roll (some crippled ships lose their G factor, and G attacks from crippled ships suffer a die roll penalty). With consorts, they can absorb the damage (barring the enemy having enough damage to direct on the commando ship) thus allowing the G factor to make its roll from an uncrippled troopship.
I know the rule can be confusing. Please note that (320.1) and (320.2) apply to special raids in general. Rule (320.3) applies ONLY to fighter/PF and Drone raids. Rule (320.4) is only for commando raids, and rule (320.5) is only for blockade running. Note that blockade running and fighter/PF/Drone raids have separate "interception" rules. Commando raids do not have interception at all, they only have to worry about surviving the fixed defenses or being blocked by the presence of a Monitor.
Consorts in fighter/pf and drone raids can contribute compot to and absorb damage in the interception battle, but have nothing to do with the attack on the "target" of the raid by PF/fighter/drone factors. Consorts in commando raids are there only to draw damage away from the commando ship. There is actually no "combat" roll for the attacker in a commando raid, only the fixed defenses get a combat roll vs. the commando ship and consorts, then (assuming the G factor survived), the raider rolls a G attack vs. the target. The real question not answered in the commando raid rule is what BIR do the fixed defenses roll at? The commando raid rule does not say, but presumably we are still using rule (521.0) when not modified by (320.4), so under (521.33) this would be BIR=5 plus or minus the variable BIR (troopship+consorts vs only fixed defenses, they pick both BIR numbers which must equal 5). Note that the variable BIR result would affect the combat roll of the fixed defenses and the ground attack roll of any surviving G factors.
It is actually much simpler than you are making out. The problem is that rule (320.3) should really be called "Conducting Fighter/PF and Drone Raids" instead of "Conducting Special Raids."
Also note that because of this, Commando Raids and Blockade runners must actually move into the "target hex", they cannot just move to an adjacent "attack hex" as such a concept ONLY applies to fighter-pf and drone raids.
Another fun question is can a commando raider use (521.39) to get the +1 on the G roll even knowing you are sacrificing the ship as you will not control the hex at then end of the raid? Can a troop tug dump its pods on the planet (ultimately sacrificing them and the marines on board) as it warps by? "Express elevator to hell!!!" Probably not allowed to do this though as (521.392) requires you to perform a normal commando operation while this is a special raid. Landing on the planet assumes you are trying to capture the planet, while you are definitely not doing this on a raid. But the troop tug pod thing would be pretty funny.
I bolded the parts that seem to conflict. So which is correct? Do the Commando Ships fight the reaction battle, or is it ignored?
The 2010 rules are supposed to have cleared things like this up. Didn't they?
The module these rules came in have not been through the update process yet, just the core rules.