""By this interpretation, the result of entering the neutral zone would be for the Federation to declare war on the HYDRANS. Fortunately for the Hydrans, the rule on the Hydran Expedition gives them a waiver from having war declared on them if they violate the neutral zone of the Federation."

This doesn't disprove what I am suggesting.""

Let me elaborate why I think this doesn't disprove my points.

The Hydrans entering the Federation uninvited, whether it be neutral zone or Federation proper, would in a normal circumstance be construed as an act of war. However, the Expedition is a unique political situation in which the Hydrans are granted an Alliance for whatever diplomatic/political reasoning.

The fact that the Federation isn't declaring war on the Hydrans is not relevant. The Federation is reacting to a fleet intrusion into their neutral zone. They just happen to be reacting by forming an alliance.

And they do declare war! Just happens do be on the Klingons and not the Hydrans lol.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, January 13, 2014 - 11:07 pm: Edit

I did not say you had to convince me otherwise. We're not in a game together, so what you think about the rule does not affect what I am doing at the moment.

What I *did* say was that if you WISHED to convince me otherwise, here's how to go about doing so. If you fulfill those conditions, I will agree that the Hydrans entering an NZ hex adjacent to the Federation activates the Federation. This WOULD affect some of my current games, so perhaps you should give it a try.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 12:04 am: Edit

Hydran Expedition questions have been answered in Q&A.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 01:10 am: Edit

Thank you Chuck.

By Jared Black (Attrition) on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 08:25 am: Edit

Thanks for the ruling, Chuck. I agree, especially with the clarification added, that the rule is specific.

I disagree with the rule itself however. I believe it's a special exception outside the norm of empire-nz interactions.

Is it possible to get an explanation on the reasoning for making the rule Federation territory instead of neutral zone?

By Jared Black (Attrition) on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 09:28 am: Edit

Supplement to previous post:

Was there a balancing factor in it? For example, was it determined to be too easy to complete the Expedition if the NZ hex was sufficient?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 11:20 am: Edit

First, specific rules always trump general rules.

Second, for whatever reason, ADB determined it was important enough that the Hydrans had to make it to the Federation using wartime movement conditions and not using the peacetime neutral zone movement abstraction rule; thus this specific rule.

Finally, ADB goes out of its way to produce balanced products but gives players the options to determine what risks they want to take-on that are balanced by the rewards for successfully mitigating those risks. The Hydran player is permitted to attempt the Expedition; he can risk one ship or his entire fleet to do so and suffers the consequences and/or reaps the rewards on the final outcome. The Coalition players can allocate resources to stop the expedition and suffers the consequences and/or reaps the rewards on the final outcome.

By Jared Black (Attrition) on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Thanks, Chuck.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Hmmmm, it might be that the Feds are doing a 'wait-&-see' operation...

A - Unknown force comes from Klingon space, Feds up their internal defense and just wait to see if said force continues on...

B - Unknown force is pursued by Klingon force, Feds up defenses and wait to see if the Klingons will force the issue by pursuing to Fed space...

In either case, the Feds don't react into the neutral zone...

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - 01:22 pm: Edit

There IS actually a way for a Hydran force to react into Federation Space...

...if the Coalition has already attacked the Federation and is moving onto hex within Federation space and is the next the NZ hex with the Hydrans in it.

Off course the reaction of the Hydran ships has no further effect - but it's possible

By Mike Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Hydrans in 1912 and 2013 klingons move onto one of them the other can react if it has a scout into fedspace. I have actually considered this before but the problem is it requires 2xDIP which is possible but not very cost effective.. and those guild bean-counters really get upset over missing beans!

By Andrew Bruno (Admeeril) on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Yes, Hydrans do love their beans.
*Pffffft!*

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Mike

.....I don't think the Klingons could go to 2013 - it would need to be a pretty strange map to say 2013 to 1912 was 'pursuing' the Hydrans (Klingons would be interned or DOW the Feds) and would require the Hydrans to be in supply - but I suppose it could happen.

By Mike Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - 04:40 pm: Edit

I mean the HYDRANS move to both hexs 1912 and 2013 (likely a retreat into these hexes. I admit kinda hard to pull off!) then if the Klingons move into either 1912 or 2013 during their turn "In Hot Pursuit" the other hex can react INTO Fedspace and there is nothing that the coalition can do about it. It is POSSIBLE just very very unlikely and it requires two diplomats and the ability to have two fleets each retreating to a different hex while being OOS.

Then they would have to become in supply by virtue of some tugs carrying supply.

By Andrew Bruno (Admeeril) on Sunday, January 19, 2014 - 08:43 pm: Edit

Q621.123 ["Demon of the Eastern Wind"]

---

Quote:

..."The Romulans receive the historical KC9R as part of the at-start order of battle, a second KC9R (for which they must pay 20 EPs) on Turn#2, and a third KC9R (for which they must pay the full price) on Turn#4 (not deducted)."

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, January 25, 2014 - 05:28 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, January 13, 2014 - 08:37 pm: Edit


F&E STAFF:

Was there any reason why the SIT SPB tp SPV conversion cost is listed as 1+4?

---

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, January 25, 2014 - 08:31 pm: Edit

I thought all that happened was that the 8 fighters were treplaced by 3 heavy fighters and 2 shuttles (and the B to V designation) or would the N modules be better.

[afterall, 6 heavy fighters = 8H, eight heavys would be 11H?]

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 03:03 pm: Edit

In response to the second reply in this post, I wanted to explain why I wondered if the ISC in the Gathering Winds scenario should have their set up areas of their OOB in (624.43) restricted to the pre-Y168 borders.

According to (624.22), the outermost provinces of ISC territory are not fully integrated into the Concordium at this point. They must be captured, garrisoned, and annexed, as well as having the outer ring of bases set in place as noted in (624.21). This is corroborated in (624.271), which marks the at-start ISC economy at 133 (which subtracts the 18 EPs the outermost provinces provide to the Pacification-era Concordium's total of 151).

The way I read this rule, the ISC need to go through the process of moving into this territory before they can begin the process of occupation, in the same way that the Romulans and Gorns must move into their respective "new" provinces (the ones they are later shown to possess as of Y186, according to (625.Y21) and (625.Z21)) during the course of the General War before doing the same. (Even the Romulan provinces which have their annexations occur "automatically" still need to have a SparrowHawk-C move into them under (603.15) before they count as formally theirs.) Otherwise, the ISC may get an unfair "jump-start" in the process, through simply placing ships in the outer provinces during set up.

For these reasons, I would argue that the deployment areas for the Second through Sixth Fleets should be restricted to those provinces which are a part of Concordium territory proper prior to Fall Y168.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Since I stated earlier that this is a high level, abstraction scenario, it can be assumed that the ISC "deployed" on the non-existent turn #0 with no knowledge by the Gorns/Romulans.

So is this requested change based upon an actual playtest of the scenario? Does the scenario somehow not work properly?

I am reluctant to recommend changes to an ADB vetted and published product if I don't have playtest reports to back it up or there is an factual mistake.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 04:55 pm: Edit

The request was in light of the onset of at least one game about to begin, in order to clarify this (and the other issues raised in the Q&A thread) prior to their getting underway.

(For my part, I am not ready to move ahead with the standalone scenario I was set to play with Richard for the time being. But he and Randy Blair are in the process of combining (624.0) with (601.0) and (602.0) for a new campaign in this thread.)

If their experience is affected one way or another by this, we'll see soon enough. But if the Turn #0 abstraction allows the current OOB set up areas to work as they are, well and good.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 05:39 pm: Edit

His requested change was not based on an actualy playtest of the scenario. Your recent Q&A rulings seem sufficient to address the issues that came up when Gary and I were talking about starting the scenario.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 06:10 pm: Edit

The way Richard and I are playing, is as Gary stated, 624 concurrently with 601/602.
However, Richard has taken the ISC side and is the Alliance player. How does that work with the new ruling?

I agree that the ISC should be able to set up as Chuck stated in "turn 0".

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 06:31 pm: Edit

I suggest that in order to make your amalgated scenario work that the play order be changed to Coalition moves, then ISC moves, then the alliance moves, then the Gorn/Romulans on the ISC front move.

The main coalition player may take control of some units (specifying which) to use them for raids on turn 7-9 against the Federation. That player picks which three will be used on turn 6 and they are placed at the beginning of turn 7 in the raid pool, and if crippled or destroyed are repaired/replaced by deleting / transferring PWC construction.

By Matthew Smith (Mgsmith67) on Monday, February 03, 2014 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Mike / Chuck,

Is anybody working on my Gorn LSC question from 1/22/14?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 03, 2014 - 03:53 pm: Edit

MS:

Answer now posted in your original message.

FEDS