(324.222) Incorrect rule reference; change (307.8) to (308.7). Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Saturday, July 24, 2021 - 12:35 am: Edit

(324.11) "To qualify for an echelon formation, the Battle Force must include six ISC ships" should read: "To qualify for an echelon formation, the Battle Force must include six ISC ships including the PPD armed Flagship (324.14)". Clarification of existing rule. Thomas Mathews 26 Jul 2019

(324.111) "Battle Forces of six or seven ships" should read: "Battle Forces with a minimum of six ships including a PPD armed flagship". Clarify that a small echelon force can have 6 or more ships only if the flagship is PPD armed under (324.11) and (324.14). Thomas Mathews 26 Jul 2019

(324.112) "Battle Forces of eight or nine ships" should read: "Battle Forces with a minimum of eight ships including a PPD armed flagship and one other PPD armed ship". Clarify that a medium echelon force can have a minimum of eight ships if the flagship and one other ship are PPD armed. Thomas Mathews 26 Jul 2019

(324.113) "Battle Forces of 10 or more ships" should read: "Battle Forces with 10 or more ships including a PPD armed flagship, one other PPD armed ship and either a third PPD armed ship OR two non-PPD armed ships with an attack factor of 8 or higher". Clarify that a large echelon force with 10 or more ships if the flagship and two other ships are PPD armed or 1 other PPD armed ship and 2 other ships with an attack factor of 8 or greater are included in the battle force. Thomas Mathews 13 Jan 2015

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, August 11, 2026 - 11:45 pm: Edit

(325.34): At the time ISC War was first published, there was no data in print to outline what impact the WYN Radiation Zone had on the Echelon formation. In light of the pending print publication of the Civil Wars rulebook, a future "Warbook" revision of this product might be able to draw upon (332.33-I) - which clarifies that such a formation cannot be utilized under barrier-disabled combat conditions. - Gary Carney, 11 August 2026

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Well we definitely added what barrier movement does to non-friendly ships that pass through the barrier and the combat effects err restrictions it has upon them.

Not sure a full blown scenario is necessary for the ISC as they can now in Driving Winds Sector where the Cordon includes the WYN hex have the players agree to use the "WYN in other scenario" rules to send a force through the barrier. The WYN will get their 10lbs of flesh and the 'effect' will likely be the ISC decide yeah that wasn't such a good idea.

I am sure a note will be made outlining this in the ISC War update whenever that happens.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 04:28 pm: Edit

That said the Rom Civil War could also be modified to include the ISC roll out across their territory but as that would be tough to balance mainly because the other side of the cordons are the Gorn and Fed who definitively would have an impact on the scenario outcome.

Possibly you could figure out a way to shoehorn the Rom Civil Wars scenario into Driving Winds scenario as that would be what was going on with the Roms at the time.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 10:01 pm: Edit

If it helps, I posted a few scenario-related notes in the Section 600 errata thread.

The note above was more to do with the technical aspect of how an ISC player is impacted by the after-effects of the Radiation Zone itself. The political aspect would, no doubt, be best further expanded upon over in the next revision to the scenario rules themselves.

Speaking of which: I made a slight error in my last post. The rule I was referring to should be (324.34).

-----

On a side note:

If one were to expect Andro War to be published after the next "Warbook" revision to ISC War, fair enough.

However, in Section 300 terms: on the off-chance that the Andromedans get their long-awaited moment before the latter thing happens, that might allow for (324.35) to be more formally addressed as a future errata update here.

Which is not necessarily something the Concordium would be best pleased about, mind you...