Nick wrote:
>>I think there was a time when people would upgrade the BATS 1805 to a starbase (If the Dukes fleet could set up there, then the base was presumably released to be upgraded), but if the coalition attacked it then the Feds would be activated (as it was still Marquis). This was deemed a bad thing, so it was removed from the Marquis area entirely to prevent the free starbase upgrade.>>

Yes. Pre-F&E 2000 rules, the status of BATS 1805 was always a little unclear; it was in the "Marquis Zone" provinces, but technically part of the Duke's fleet set up (as the set up rules were worded in the '86, '89, and '93 rulebooks), which made for that ambiguity of "You can't attack this base, but it is technically released, so it can be upgraded and you can't attack it".

Check. But in the F&E 2000 rules, this was clearly and unambiguously fixed. The 2K rulebook made the Duke's deployment area specifically "not in the Marquis Provinces", making BATS 1805 inactive until T7. Which completely and handily fixed the whole issue.

But then in AO and 2K10, the set up rules reverted to the weird situation where BATS 1805 was in one of the Marquis Provinces, but again part of the Duke's Deployment area.

The big question is "Why"?

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 08:32 am: Edit

Sounds like an oversight to me, but I don't really know.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 10:35 am: Edit

Nick wrote:
>>Sounds like an oversight to me, but I don't really know. >>

Me too :-)

If I had to guess (and currently, I do...), the rules were viewed as needing clearing up, and so we got the incredibly clear rules in the 2K rulebook. And then when someone was making the OB/Fleet lists for Advanced Ops (where this first got changed), they randomly decided to change where the Duke's fleet set up. Which released that BATS. Which no one really thought about. Until someone pointed out that you could convert that BATS into a SB, and 'cause it was in the Marquis Zone, the Coalition couldn't attack it. And then all the bending over backwards to make the rules all fit back together.

Really, I'd like to see the rules go back to where they were in the 2K rulebook (i.e. clear, unambiguous, no wonky exceptions). If someone, somewhere wants to justify why it is important that BATS 1805 can be killed before T7, then I'd like to see the rule reworded so that it makes complete sense (just like Ted submitted above).

But at this point, I'd really just like to find someone who knows if that 2K>AO/2K10 change was specific and intentional, or just an accident that no one noticed.

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 12:51 pm: Edit

I am of the opinion that the area in question (1705, 1805, possibly but not sure of 1804) should go back to being part of the Marquis deployment zone and off limits for building/upgrading bases and vulnerabilty to attack (although it could be attacked, this would release the Federation 4th fleet and trigger limited war). The corresponding change should apply to the Klingon bases in 1707 and 1807 (although they could be attacked, this would release the Klingon Eastern fleet). This is the most straightforward solution and creates minimal issues with play balance, etc.

If it is decided that the area in question should remain vulnerable to attack, I would strongly advise addressing what the Coalition could and could not do in this area. It is rather wierd to me that the Klingons and Lyrans could setup and upgrade bases on the Klingon-Federation border (in 1705-1707 and 1804-1807) without the Feds batting an eyelash, considering the prohibition on upgrading facilities in the Marquis zone (for the Kzinti) or the Eastern fleet area (for the Coalition).

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Kosta wrote:
I am of the opinion that the area in question (1705, 1805, possibly but not sure of 1804)>>

1804 is the hex adjacent to the Fed Neutral Zone above BATS 1805, so is clearly something that should be off limits if 1805 and 1705 are.

>>This is the most straightforward solution and creates minimal issues with play balance, etc.>>

Agreed.

>>If it is decided that the area in question should remain vulnerable to attack, I would strongly advise addressing what the Coalition could and could not do in this area. It is rather wierd to me that the Klingons and Lyrans could setup and upgrade bases on the Klingon-Federation border (in 1705-1707 and 1804-1807) without the Feds batting an eyelash, considering the prohibition on upgrading facilities in the Marquis zone (for the Kzinti) or the Eastern fleet area (for the Coalition).>>

Yeah, see, that is a very good point. Given the current, weird state of the rules, there is nothing preventing the Coalition from building a SB in hex 1805 (after killing the BATS there), when they can't build a BATS in any of the Klingon provinces adjacent to the Fed neutral zone. Weird.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, September 28, 2012 - 11:57 am: Edit

Proposed re-wording for rule 601.12 to remove apparent confusion caused by history of rules changes from F&E2K to AO to F&E2010 (Draft 4): "The "Marquis Zone" consists of province 1802 (hexes 1801, 1802, 1901, 1902, and 2001) plus hexes 1704, 1803, and 1804. If any Coalition unit enters the Marquis Zone prior to Turn #7, then all of the following occurs: 1) The Marquis fleet is fully released; 2) The Federation 4th fleet is released immediately and may operate in Kzinti territory; and 3) the Federation goes to limited war to support the Kzinti. For purposes of this rule, any Orion mercenary in the employ of the Coalition counts as a Coalition unit. Hexes 1705 and 1805 (and BATS 1805) are part of the Duke's deployment area and are not subject to this restriction. Therefore, for example, the Coalition may enter and occupy Hexes 1705 and 1805, and attack or destroy BATS 1805, prior to Turn #7 without triggering any of the above events. Additionally, the six unreleased ships of Marquis fleet may not enter hexes 1705 and 1805 until they are released."
Ted Fay 27 September 2012.