Q308.23 If a PFT or PDU with PFs is destroyed via directed damage (302.5) must the now homeless PFs be absorbed into an existing under strength casual PF flotilla (524.21) bringing the casual PF flotilla to maximum strength if no other home is available for them or is that at the option of the PF owning player?

FEDS: Unless overruled by ADB, PFs from destroyed PFTs/PDUs can be transferred into CPFs per (524.23) but PFs from a destroyed CPF cannot be transferred to PFTs or PDUs per (524.231).

References:

---

Quote:

(524.23) TRANSFERS: Individual PFs can be transferred into a Casual PF Flotilla just as they could to any PFT. These PFs can come from any legal tender/base of the same race.

(524.231) PFs can never be transferred out of a CPF, even if the ships carrying the CPF are destroyed. Once they are sent to a CPF, they cannot be transferred to a PFT although they could be transferred between two CPFs in the same hex.
Designer's note: This prevents players from using CPFs as simply a stockpile of spare PFs, which was never their mission.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, February 04, 2019 - 11:12 am: Edit

Q305.11 (capturing ships): May a player decline to make the capture roll?

I searched the BBS and noticed that I had asked this question on March 31, 2013 - but that no answer was given (at least that I could find).

Ruling requested, thanks.


Example: 30 Kzinti ships attack 12 Lyran ships on Turn X. Knowing that the hex cannot be won, the Lyran player decides he will fight one battle round as required, and then retreat. During combat, using legal battle lines, the Lyrans score 12 damage and the Kzinti do 24 damage. The Lyrans use directed damage to kill a Kzinti FF (which requires exactly 12 damage to kill a 4/2 unit). To avoid pursuit, the Lyran self-kill 2 CA for 8+4+8+4 = 24 damage.

The Lyran self-killed units for the per-determined purpose to avoid any kind of pursuit battle by the Kzinti (there being no crippled ships in the Lyran fleet).

The Kzinti player, hoping to force a pursuit by forcing the Lyran player to accept a captured (and crippled) Kzinti FF in his forces, points out that 305.11 simply instructs the Lyran player to roll 2 dice and if the result is "2" then the ship is captured. If the FF is captured, then a cripple will be present and pursuit possible.

The Lyran points out that all he has to do to not capture a ship is to NOT order marines to try to capture it or to NOT try to tractor it, or whatever.

But the Kzinti player replies that F&E is an abstraction and that it is unconcerned with such localized tactics - so the captured roll is required as written.

R305.11: There is no permissive language in this rule. "...one enemy ship has (non-ship units cannot be captured) been captured." Ruling is that this happens whether you like it or not. Stuff happens beyond your control sometimes. - FEAR

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, February 12, 2019 - 08:08 pm: Edit

Q540.22 Is the bonus EP earned under this diplomatic mission affected by the economic status of the receiving empire?

(i.e. if the Gorn have a diplomat in the Federation capital and are at peace, do they receive 1EP, as per the printed text, or is it modified for their peacetime economic status to 0.5EP?)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, February 13, 2019 - 03:55 am: Edit

---

Quote:

(540.22) ALLIES: Diplomatic teams improve cooperation between allies. If a diplomatic team is deployed in the capital of an allied race, then both races receive one extra EP per turn (in the Economic Phase of the race owning the Diplomatic Team) reflecting more efficient cooperation (not affected by exhaustion). This takes effect only if the two capitals have a valid strategic movement link. This effect is cumulative if both races have a diplomatic team in the other capital, but additional teams from either race would not generate additional EPs. Any EPs generated in peacetime could be spent freely or saved at the owner's discretion.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, February 13, 2019 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Urgent Question.

Q203.732 Does "no possible alternative" in the first sentence of 203.732 mean that 203.74 must be considered as a "possible" alternative, even though the second sentence of 203.732 says that one reserve can move into a hex which is not a battle hex if in doing so it allows a second reserve fleet to move to a qualified objective hex?

The question may seem obtuse, but let's make it concrete in terms of the actual game that is being played between Dana Madsen (Coalition) and myself (Alliance).

The facts: It is Coalition turn 6, after operational movement is declared over, so now it time for the Alliance reserves to move. There are two Kzinti reserves, 16 SEQ each, in the Kzinti Barony (offmap). Coalition units (but not Kzinti units) are present in the following hexes: 25 SEQ in hex 1401 (occupying the Kzinti capital), 6 SEQ plus a COE and a BS being upgraded to a BATS in hex 1502, 6 SEQ in hex 1601, and 5 SEQ in hex 1701. For purposes of this example, there is one combat hex: Hex 1605 which contains a Kzinti BATS, a Kzinti POL, and roughly 33 SEQ of Coalition units.

The situation: The Kzinti player (me) declares that the combat hex (1604) is a target of one of the reserves. However, there is no path to reach hex 1605 since all paths of 6 hexes or less are blocked by Coalition units in 1401, 1502, 1601, and 1701. I then note 203.732 in which one reserve can open a path for a subsequent reserve fleet "as long as there was no possible alternative by which that subsequent reserve unit could reach the objective hex". Briefly, I consider 203.74 - which allows me to use one reserve fleet to go through hex 1701 (the one with the least number of Coalition units (5)). In this case, I would leave the least number of units possible to satisfy the pin and then hit 1605. Doing so would also, obviously, open the path for the second reserve to reach hex 1605.

In a sense, this would be a "possible alternative" under 203.732, first sentence. If so, then I would be *required* to use 203.74 to reach the target hex under the present circumstances, because the argument is that I can only use 203.732 if "there was no possible alternative by which that subsequent reserve unit could reach the objective hex" (emphasis added).

Indeed, this is the crux of Dana's position.

However, keep reading in 203.732. The second sentence says, "Thus, one Reserve Fleet can move into a hex which is not a Battle Hex if in doing so it allows a second Reserve Fleet to move to a qualified objective hex". I added the emphasis to indicate that "Thus" refers to a clarifying transition word which describes what is meant by the first sentence and also to note the more permissive language of "if in doing so it allows..." In other words, the clarifying second sentence of 203.73 seems to soften the more absolute language of the first sentence 203.73. In other words, because of the clarifying sentence, the "no possible alternative" language is really just referring to there being no path without enemy ships in it - it does NOT imply a reference to check 203.74 as an "alternative" first.

Stated differently, I satisfy the conditions of 203.732. I am moving one reserve feet into a hex which is not a battle hex and "in doing so" it "allows" the second reserve fleet to move to the qualified objective. There's no requirement for me to check 203.74 first. The only requirement is to check to see if there is a path to the target hex without enemy units (in this case there is not).

This is the crux of my position.

The irony is that both of us are arguing "black letter" of the rules. He says "no possible alternative" is black letter that means you have to look for any alternative - including 203.74. I say that "in doing so" (using 203.73) I am "allowing" the second reserve to reach the target hex, thereby satisfying the black letter of 203.73 - and that the "no possible alternative" in the first sentence is just referring to the question of whether there is a reserve path without enemy units. Thus, it appears some clarification to the interaction between these two rules is needed.

The consequence of my position is that there is no interaction between 203.73 and 203.74. Accordingly, if there is a situation where you could use *either* 203.73 *or* 203.74 to open a reserve path to reach a target battle hex, the non-phasing player may select *either* rule to do so. In other words, for this example, it is the non-phasing player's choice whether he wishes to use 203.73 and send a whole reserve fleet to *any* of 1502, 1601, or 1701 (but not 1401 as there are too many Coalition units here), or whether he wishes to use 203.74 and detatch part of one reserve (and thus open the path for the other reserve as well).

The consequence of Dana's position is that there would be an interaction between 203.73 and 203.74. If you are presented with a situation in which there is a choice between using 203.74 (one reserve fleet and leaving some units behind) or 203.73 (a full reserve fleet to a non-battle hex) - you will be required to use 203.74 first. An additional consequence to Dana's position is that the only time you can invoke 203.73 is when there are too many enemy SEQ in the way to invoke 203.74, but not so many SEQ as to prevent a combination of 203.73 and 203.74 from allowing at least half of one reserve fleet to reach the target hex.

A ruling is respectfully requested. Because this game is an active game, and expedited consideration and ruling is respectfully requested.

Once the ruling is made, a clarifying sentence should be added to rule 203.73 when the next edition is published (i.e. whether or not you need to check 203.74 when deciding whether you can use 203.73).

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Thursday, February 14, 2019 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Q540.22: Followup question:

Is the income from this mission considered "economic income", and subject to the Economic Level of the receiving empire? It is not, as Col. Strong points out in the quoted rules, subject to exhaustion effects, so does that mean that it is similarly exempt from Economic Levels (Peace and Limited War)?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, February 14, 2019 - 04:58 pm: Edit

I formally withdraw my previous question under 203.732. I now re-present the question in broader terms under 203.7 generally.


Q203.7. I am confused as to *when* decisions are made with respect to the application of 203.73 (particularly 203.732) and also of 203.74. Therefore, I respectfully request that a defined sequence, or at least an example, be provided as to how reserve movement works, and when reserve movement decisions are made, in the case that enemy units are in the path of every single path that can be reached to take to a target hex.

If you do use an example to answer this question, I have one provided for you here by reference to this map:

https://www.dropbox.com/home/F%26E/Public%20Links?preview=Art+of+Zin+Reserve+Movement+CT6.jpg

In words: It is Coalition Turn #6 and it is the reserve movement phase. Two Kzinti reserves (16 SEQ each) are in the offmap Barony. There is a single combat hex (1605) which Coalition and Kzinti units. Coalition units, only, are located in hexes 1401 (25 SEQ), 1502 (6 SEQ), 1601 (6 SEQ), and 1701 (5 SEQ).

The Kzinti player has announced that reserve fleet 1 has, as it's target hex, the battle hex 1605. However, there are no possible paths to hex 1605 that reserve fleet 1 may take without intercepting Coalition units in non-battle hex hexes. Therefore, *at least one of* rules 203.732 and 203.74 could be used (and perhaps both rules) may be used to get reserve fleet 1 to battle hex 1605.

Please define the sequence of reserve movement decisions so that I may know whether:

1) I *may* elect which one of 203.732 and 203.74 I can use to reach battle hex 1605 with reserve fleet 1. If so, why, what is the sequence of decisions that got me to that point?

or

2) I *must* select one of 203.74 *or* 203.732 to reach battle hex 1605 with reserve fleet 1. If so, why, what is the sequence of decisions that got me to that point.

Note that if I may (or must) select 203.732, then the second reserve fleet *must* move first to open the supply path for the first reserve fleet.


Follow up question:

*CAN* 203.74 form an exception to the shortest path requirement of 203.73?


Follow up question:

If I "may" or "must" use 203.732 to open a path for the first reserve fleet using the second reserve fleet, *must* I select the shortest path (through the enemy units in hex 1601) or *may* I select *any* of hexes 1502, 1601, and 1701 because doing so will open a valid path and rule 203.73 explicitly excepts rule 203.732?


If a fully developed sequence of play is specified for how reserve movement is conducted in view of 203.73, 203.732, and 203.74 - that would be wonderful and greatly appreciated.

Respectfully submitted.

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, February 14, 2019 - 08:42 pm: Edit

I will get on this after Stratcon starts when I have time.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, February 17, 2019 - 10:03 am: Edit

The Romulan Bats in hexes 4010 an 4110. 4010 is listed as BATS F6 and 4110 is BATS G1.

Fleet of the West deployment zone for GW is Province 4010 which includes both bases.

In Demon of the Eastern Wind and the STRATCON Playtest combined scenario is 4110 a Gorn border base. The justification for considering 4110 as a Gorn border (and deployment base for Fleet of the North) is how Klingon BATS 1707 and 1807 are treated with 1707 Northern Fleet and Kzinti border and 1807 Eastern Fleet and Federation Border.

This will change the setups in 704 Order of Battle for Basic F&E and the Online Order of Battles.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, February 25, 2019 - 10:16 am: Edit

It was pointed out to me that the following question I asked back in 2012 does not yet have an answer on the BBS. Was it answered in a Captain's Log? If so, what was the answer? If not, can we get an answer? Thank you!

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, January 03, 2012 - 11:07 am

Q603.3. In the event that victory is caluclated by this rule (603.3) (i.e., no knockout victory under 651.2), do Tholian bases and ships get added to Alliance victory points? Assume the Tholians joined the Alliance as "limited partners" under 604.15 between turns 22-28, but then re-entered their territory thereafter per 604.152). Assume further that neither the Coalition nor the Alliance ever entered Tholian territory. Rule 604.151 makes it clear that the Tholian capital does not count for victory conditions. However, that rule is confusing to me, as 603.3 would only add the value of a capital if it's captured and held in the first place (meaning that this sentence in 604.151 appears to be redundant to the basic victory caluclation in 603.3 (where bonuses are achieved only for holding capitals anyway). That being said, because 604.151 essentially reiterates what 603.3 already provides, it makes me think that while the Tholian capital counts towards victory when captured (no matter what), perhaps Tholian bases and ships DO count towards Alliance victory points even if the Coalition never entered Tholian territory. While it could be argued that the Tholians never "joined" the Alliance (603.3, final sentence), it could also be argued that the Tholians DID join the Alliance as "limited partners" between turns 22-28 and thus their bases and ships should be included in Alliance victory points. Please clarify, and thanks.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Saturday, March 09, 2019 - 09:55 pm: Edit

deleted by author

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Saturday, March 09, 2019 - 10:00 pm: Edit

Could we get an official fix on the mess of (603.54):

(603.54) If the Federation starts a war with the Romulans or Klingons, the Gorns do not enter the war at all unless somebody attacks the Gorns (and then they join the other side).

A lot of things about this don't make sense. First of all, it's under a collection of rules about Gorn limited war. Above there is the text "under limited war, the following rules apply:". So how can 603.54 be applied if the Gorns are already at limited war?

Furthermore, we have the following under (603.2):
TURN #12, SPRING Y174
Set up the Gorn forces before Turn #12 begins. If the Romulans have entered Federation territory, the Gorns enter the War as members of the Alliance.

This would appear to directly contradict (603.54). If the Feds have attacked the Klingons, and the Romulans have entered Fed territory (regardless of who attacked first), it appears that the Gorns both do and do not enter the war.

Lastly, as of turn 21, we have the following:
(604.11) STATUS: The Alliance (Hydrans, Kzintis, Federation, Gorns) is at war with the Coalition (Klingons, Lyrans, Romulans). All of their forces are available for use anywhere within the re- strictions of other rules.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, March 10, 2019 - 07:00 pm: Edit

WilliamJ - (603.54) is for that rare case of the Feds being the aggressors. In which case, the Gorns will merely sit back and watch. (In the case of the Gorns already being at limited war, the Feds were not aggressors, were they.)

(603.2) - This is the normal case, it allows the Coalition to set their Reserves. If (603.54) is active, the Gorns must still set their defense but are not obligated to move until attacked.

(604.11) - Normal assumption, if there is a special case [Like (603.54)], make corrections.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Saturday, March 23, 2019 - 12:58 pm: Edit

About inactive fleets (600.3). Can fighters from bases in the region of an inactive fleet react outside of the inactive fleet's region?

Evidence that they can: I don't see anything in (600.3) that specifically forbids this.

Evidence that they can't: It does feel outside the spirit of the inactive fleet rule.

Worth noting that this already affects the Kzinti on turn 2. If the fighters can react, they can put an FF in 1703 for example, so that province will likely not be conquered before turn 7.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 - 06:08 am: Edit

Interlinked question on Engineers and Off Map Areas.

207 seems to infer the Off Map areas are a single area - your either Off Map - or not, which is fine in the basic game.

PO Colonial Developments (446) and Shipyards (450) introduces locations though and SO Engineers (541) expands on this.

Prior to the destruction of a Major Shipyard (Capital Hex), Engineers are permitted to work on Minor Shipyards.

Engineers are not permitted to work on a Medium or Major Ship yard (or do anything other than move a MB or used as a SAF) in Capital Hexes.

So the questions are

1) If the Major shipyard has been destroyed, can an Engineer be used for other functions in the Off Map Area (Build minor Shipyards for example)?

2) If the Engineer is in the Off Map area, can it be used to complete one task and then the following turn, immediately start on a new task?

For Example - Turn 4 (170) a Hydran or Lyran Engineer starts building a FF Minor Shipyard at one of the Major Planets in their Off Map Area (it is physically started in the Turn 4 production phase) - and completes it on turn 5 (in what appears to be the production phase, but possibly it needs to remain at that location during the rest of the turn to complete the yard).

So, can the same Engineer on turn 6 start a new Minor Shipyard at the other Major Planet (or SB) - or does it need to 'move' to the new location?

The outcome can also be applied to Tugs building a Shipyard too.

It may be the Engineer (or Tug) just has to move to the required location on the turn the initial construction costs are started to be paid - which is how Colonial Developments appear to permitted to be build (446.12 and 446.13).

504.14 also states the Tug (or equivalent) needs to be in the hex where it is being built, which would either infer Minor Shipyards can't be built in the off map area (as it is not a hex) or if Hex and Off Map areas are interchangeable terminology, the Engineer Units can't be used with a Off Map replacement Capital.

So, are 'Hexes' and the Off Map location one and the same and how does that effect Minor Shipyards and Engineers?

Thank you

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, March 29, 2019 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Deleted by Author. Answer found.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, March 29, 2019 - 05:47 pm: Edit

Question on Minor Ship yards

450.18 Explicitly states a Minor Shipyard can substitute a variant of the hull for a basic hull - and gives the example that a Fed DD can not be substituted for a Fed NCL.

In 450.12 it confirms that Conversion Facilities can allow double coversions and downsized substitiions.

However in the Q&A Archive pages it has -
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/19859.html?MondayMarch0320080825am

It states
(450.12) There is nothing in this rule to stop a Conversion Facility from making a double conversion, nor is there anything stopping you from using (450.4) to produce a Lyran DD in a Lyran CW shipyard. "

Which seems to directly contradict 450.18.

The only question which this might be related to is this :-

"Nick or somebody
Can someone clear something up for me on MINOR SHIPYARD (450.12)
the Conversion both the Minor and Major DO YOU NEED to build a minor shipyard first or is the Conversion yard a whole differt shipyard and if it is what year can you start building one
mholiver
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Although I am NOT Nick of course. I think its safe to say. The Minor and Major Conversion Facilities ARE a type of Minor shipyard. You build them where any other Minor Shipyard can be built (Starbase or Major Planet I believe) and they function to provide a Minor or Major Conversion each turn. They do NOT need other facilites present to function.

If you need an official ruling you should CERTAINLY wait for Nick to answer; however, reread the MSY rules with what I said above and I think you will see it clearly.

As for YIS its the same as the 'shipyard' entry on the SIT. It is available to BEGIN construction in Y170.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 01:00 pm: Edit

SO IN A WAY THEY ARE NOT A ADDED ON TO SAY A starbase ...SO THEY ARE TYPE OF SHIPYARD THEN AND THEM THE SHIPYARD CAN DO BOTH CONVERT AND BUID A NEW UNIT
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 01:02 pm: Edit

I did ask anyone to answer this issue ....
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Major and Minor Conversion facilities are independent entities like any other minor shipyard, they are not built as part of something else.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Nick
What Michael posted ...is that right
Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 12:54 pm:
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 12:02 pm: Edit "


So the question is - is the archive information wrong or is 450.18 (and the example within it) wrong?

If 450.18 is wrong, it would seem to take away the value of a Minor Conversion Facility - as that would grant the ability to Substitute to other hull classes .It would also take away some of the value of FF and War Destroyer Shipyards if you could always downsize (in general), to a smaller hull if required.

Example - Build a Lyran CW Shipyard - and it allows you to build CW, DD and DW hulls.

Is that the intention of the correction?

Thank you

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Saturday, March 30, 2019 - 02:33 am: Edit

DD and CW yes, DW no. that's how I read it.

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Saturday, March 30, 2019 - 02:33 am: Edit

DD and CW yes, DW no. that's how I read it.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, March 30, 2019 - 10:12 am: Edit

Edit: moved to correct thread.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, March 31, 2019 - 02:40 pm: Edit

Per FEDS:

Unless overruled by ADB, a Minor Shipyard that produces a given hull ‘X’ may produce a lesser hulled ship “Y” if ship “Y” can be converted into ship ‘X’.

Non-exhaustive list of examples:

Lyran/LDR CW MSYs may produce DD hulled ships;
Lyran/LDR DW MSYs may produce FF hulled ships;
LDR MP MSYs may produce POL hulled ships;
Gorn BD MSYs may produce DD hulled ships;
Hydran DW MSYs may produce HN/CR/CU hulled ships;
Klingon F5W MSYs may produce F5/F5L hulled ships;
Tholian DD and CW MSYs may produce PC hulled ships;
Romulan K5L MSYs may produce K5 hulled ships.

FEDS CONCURS and updated the posting above.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, April 02, 2019 - 02:25 am: Edit

As it's unclear - please can I have a formal ruling on Rule 450.0 - specifically 450.12


The last three sentences of 450.12 states (third one included but not relevant) :-

"The Major Conversion Facility can perform one major (or minor) conversion (which must be paid for, but without the penalty) and the Minor Conversion Facility adds the ability to make such a conversion, but neither can produce ships. Either can make a double conversion within it's limits and use downsized substitutions (450.4). Minor shipyards of a given type cannot be converted or upgraded to any other type."

I am being told under Mike's ruling - Minor Shipyarrds can only downsize to the permitted upgradable hulls, so why is there the reference to downsized substitutions?

For clarity, I have PO Copyright 2004 and it has Planetary Operations rulebook 3204 in a text box on the bottom of the back cover page (happy to send a photo of the relevant pages).

I am guessing (as Richard and Ryan have tried to help) that there was two versions of PO printed in 2004 - and I have the first version and there was a second version printed, with the reference to substitution removed - but that is only a guess.

i.e. the Rule was amended (and hence all the confusion)

Thank you

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 02, 2019 - 04:15 am: Edit

For some unknown reason there are two different PRINTED versions of PO dated 2004 and specifically, within the last sentences of rule (450.12).

VERSION 1:
"The Major Conversion Facility can perform one major (or minor) conversion (which must be paid for, but without the penalty) and the Minor Conversion Facility adds the ability to make such a conversion, but neither can produce ships. Either can make a double conversion within it's limits and use downsized substitutions (450.4). Minor shipyards of a given type cannot be converted or upgraded to any other type."

VERSION 2:
"The Major Conversion Facility can perform one major (or minor) conversion (which must be paid for, but without the penalty) and the Minor Conversion Facility adds the ability to make such a conversion, but neither can produce ships. Minor shipyards of a given type cannot be converted or upgraded into any other type."

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, April 02, 2019 - 04:21 am: Edit

Thanks Chuck.

By Sören Klein (Ogdrklein) on Saturday, April 20, 2019 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Hi, everyone!

While trying to compile several charts from the rulebooks into a quick reference file I stumbled over two things I'd like to ask:

1) Regarding the Operational Bases (453.0)

Rule (453.3) of the Strategic Operations rulebook (year 2006) list a different EW chart for the OPB than the annex 761 in the consolidated order of battle file from 2009. Which one is right?
The rulebook or the more recent oob file?

2) Marine Major Generals (321.0)

Rule (312.32) Add a GCE allows the MMG to add a free unit of extra troops (which I read as G-Factor like on commando ships) without specifically requirying him to be on a commando ship.
Rule (521.5) allows commando ships to use their G-Factor for a -1 die roll shift for capturing warships.
Does the combination of both mean that a MMG (granting a free GCE to a battleforce) by itself would provide a bonus for capturing warships or does rule 521.5 require him to be on an actual commando ship?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein