Staff Attention Required Items:

---

Quote:

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 17, 2021 - 05:45 pm: Edit

THIS NEEDS TO BE SENT BACK TO ME AS A LINE ITEM
(523.143 – supply transport interaction with X-ship (CL#)
FEDS: NOT ENOUGH INFO FOR ACTION. Request staff assistance.

---

---

Quote:

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 17, 2021 - 06:36 pm: Edit

(525.134 – [note interaction vs (525.43)] JUST WHAT INTERACTION IS THIS.

FEDS: NOT ENOUGH INFO FOR ACTION. Request staff assistance.

---

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, January 13, 2022 - 09:48 am: Edit

(523.423) = Cost of SB/SBX (24) and BTX/SBX (40) need to be upgraded to 36 and 52 to match current unified base upgrade numbers. SWFrazier 220113

FEDS: Non-concurs as build costs have been removed from the rule sets and are now only listed in the SITS. Recommendation - Change rule to read: "X-Bases can be produced by converting an eligible, existing non-X-base to an X-technology base or by upgrading an eligible existing X-base to a larger X-base; see SITs for build costs and eligible bases."

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 21, 2022 - 07:22 am: Edit

SVC DID THIS ONE AS FEDS RECOMMENDED.

(317.3) FEDS recommends CHANGING the text to read as follows:

REVISE: "Light or escort carriers (and NCL-based carriers) cannot use E-3As. (Any Fed ship could carry one as cargo; but only CVS and larger carriers can use one BCV and BCS ships can carry one SWAC of either type.)"

REPLACE WITH: E3 SWACs can only be used on used only on heavy carriers, space control ships, conjectural battleship carriers, conjectural stellar domination ships, dreadnought heavy carrier, starbases, and stellar fortresses; CVD, DCS, BCV, BCS, DVL, medium, light, or escort carriers (and NCL-based carriers) cannot use E-3As.

RATIONALE: SFU R-section rule (R2.F3A) states that E3A SWAC: "These were used only on heavy carriers (R2.13), space control ships (R2.32), conjectural battleship carriers (R2.93), conjectural stellar domination ships (R2.94), conjectural stellar domination ships with fast patrol ships (R2.94A), dreadnought heavy carrier (R2.A29), starbases (R1.1), and stellar fortresses (R1.89)." The R-sections further state specifically that the CVD, DCS, BCV, BSC, and DVL carriers "cannot use an E3A heavy SWAC shuttle."

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 05, 2022 - 04:10 pm: Edit

(523.45) FEDS suggested CHANGE:
Last line CURRENTLY READS: Tholians do not operate FRDs and cannot have an FRX.
CHANGE TO READ: Empires that do not produce FRDs and cannot produce FRXs.
Rationale: Some minor empires cannot produce FRDs.
SVC DID THIS
============================
(523.453) FEDS suggested CHANGE:
CURRENT: Empires (other than the Tholians) can build X-FRDs without limit starting in Y186.
SUGGEST: (523.453) Empires able to produce FRDs (including the Federation) may produce additional FRXs beginning in Y186.
Rationale: Some minor empires cannot produce FRDs.
SVC (523.453) Empires able to produce FRDs (including the Federation) may produce additonal FRXs starting in Y186.
============================
(523.454) FEDS suggested ADD:
(523.454) Empires able to produce PRDs may produce X-technology Planetary Repair Docks (PRX) beginning in Y187 which have the same repair capability of an FRX; costs are listed in the SITs. PRXs counters will be made available in a future product (AndroWar).
Rationale: Logical progression of X-tech capabilities in the post war era where more X-Ships are available. Rule included to rulebook maintain continuity.
SVC (523.454) Empires able to produce PRDs and which have X-technology may produce X-technology Planetary Repair Docks (PRX) beginning in Y187. PRXs have the same repair capability of an FRX; costs are listed in the SITs. PRXs counters will be made available in a future product.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 06, 2022 - 01:59 am: Edit

THESE ITEMS ARE ALREADY IN THE 2022 DOCUMENT.

(314.10) FEDS recommends adding: Raid Pool - WYN, one ship.
(314.16) FEDS recommends adding: Expanded Raid Pool - WYN, two ships.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 08, 2022 - 03:21 am: Edit

ADDED AS PER FEDS

(524.212) FEDS recommends adding:

(524.212) E: See empire specific Orders of Battle (700 Series) for CPF carriage exceptions.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 08, 2022 - 08:17 pm: Edit

SVC ADDED MODIFIED TEXT
(523.55) FEDS suggests ADDING this new rule:

(523.55) X-FIGHTER MODULE: X-Bases that are authorized to use X-Fighters are operated out of X-fighter modules (FXM); costs of FXMs are listed in the SITs and must be paid with XTPs. FXM can only be used on X-bases and be attached to any available module port of the X-base. Authorized X-bases are not required to use X-fighters, but could choose to use authorized, non-X fighter modules instead.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, March 18, 2022 - 07:44 pm: Edit

TEXT ADDED BUT I HAD TO TEDIOUSLY EDIT THE SINGLE QUOTES TO DOUBLE QUOTES WHICH TOOK MORE TIME THAN ADDING THE TEXT. PEOPLE WITH PRIDE IN THEIR WORK TRY TO GET SUCH JEANISMS RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE AS A MATTER OF HABIT. BEING IN THE HABIT OF DOING IT THE WAY JEAN WANTS IT SAVES WEAR AND TEAR ON MY HEAD.

(525.23T) FEDS Recommends adding the following text to the rule for HDWTs:

These ships cannot carry mobile bases, pods, pallets, modules, or ground bases and thus do not have the 'U' designator. They are treated as limited theater transports able to do the following missions: C2 (setup a MB); D (Supply Source); H (EP Transfers); I (Under Repair); J1 (Base Repair); K2 (Upgrade PDU/PGB); M (Warship); T (KR Parts); U (Drone Supply); V (Raid Supply); X (Develop Colony); Y (Build Colony Base).

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, March 20, 2022 - 10:04 am: Edit

(523.512) Hydran SBXs and SFXs have two Stinger-X squadrons (18 fighter factors) while Hydran BTXs and STXs have one squadron (nine factors).

When upgrading a MB or OPB to a BSX or Any base to an X Base can a player opt to not upgrade the fighters to Stinger X's to save on the upgrade cost?
Obviously notes would have to be kept for each such base.

FEDS has no issue with opting for using standard tech fighter modules on Hydran X-Bases as they already use non-X-tech PF modules and the rules for adding modules is included in AO.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 20, 2022 - 12:02 pm: Edit

Stewart:

---

Quote:

(525.242) JGPs can be built or configured for the HDW-K (combat, but the JGP does not gain any attack factors as an HDW would), HDW-V (carrier, but not H or heavy fighter carrier), HDW-C (command), HDW-G (commando), HDW-F (field repair), and HDW-R (forward carrier resupply) missions. Mission changes are done in the same way as the HDWs; the limit on SB conversions covers HDWs and JGPs combined. JGPs cannot perform missions not listed in this rule.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 22, 2022 - 06:45 pm: Edit

(523.36) FEDS Question: Does this rule permit a player with F-ships/X-ships to ALLOW enemy F-ship and X-ship to withdraw before combat with the strategy to pin back more standard ships? FEDS has no issue with allowing this. If so, how is this done?


Existing rule:

---

Quote:

(523.36) WITHDRAWAL: Uncrippled X-ships can conduct a withdrawal before combat without challenge unless the enemy force includes uncrippled X-ships, in which case each enemy X-ship means one friendly X-ship cannot withdraw without going through the normal challenge process.

(523.361) For purposes of this rule, F-ships are treated as X-ships, while unsupplied X-ships and F-ships are treated as normal ships.

(523.362) This is an exception to the limitations of (302.11) so the defender could send in a reserve fleet and then still withdraw his X-ships.

(523.363) The Sequence is as follows:
1st: Determine any X-ships or fast ships which have lost this privilege due to the presence of enemy X-ships or F-ships.
2nd: Conduct normal withdrawal before combat (302.10).
3rd: Conduct special X-ship and F-ship withdrawal by ships that did not lose the privilege in the first step.

---

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, March 22, 2022 - 10:51 pm: Edit

I would say no; since there is no enabling rule. The rule says for each enemy x-ship one friendly x-ship cannot withdraw. It does not say one friendly x-ship cannot withdraw without permission.

That's pretty solid language.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, March 23, 2022 - 06:03 am: Edit

DONE

(523.242) FEDS recommends reinstating the deleted the text and remove the current text that states: "This rule is obsolete and can be ignored."

Recommended text:

(523.242) X-ships can retrograde during the enemy retrograde phase.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, March 23, 2022 - 10:53 am: Edit

@Chuck on the 523.36 question:

I do not see how the current wording of the *cited* rules allows the proposition that an *attacking* player may preferentially allow his opponent to withdraw ONLY enemy F ships and X ships before combat. It seems that if both sides have uncrippled X/F ships, then you must go through the normal challenge process.

Referring to 302.1 et. seq., if the attacking player does not oppose the withdrawal, then all defending ships may retreat (302.12). Some could stay, of course, but that is the defender's decision once the attacker has given general permission to withdraw, not the attacker's decision to preferentially allow some but not all ships to withdraw. There is no provision in 302.1 itself for permitting the attacker to specify that some ships may withdraw, but not others.

Under 302.13 (withdrawal opposed), the defender has two options - withdraw 1/2 ships in the hex, or withdraw any number of ships as long as a number of ships in the hex equal the number of attacking ships in the hex. Under option 2, theoretically the defender may elect to withdraw X/F ships in favor "normal" ships - but there is nothing different or special in terms of allowing *only* X/F ships to take advantage of this rule. Thus, it remains the *defender's* decision, not within the attacker's authorization.

So, the short of it, I believe the answer to the question is "no" - 523.36 (in view of 302.1 et. seq.) does not permit the *attacker* to voluntarily permit enemy X/F ships from withdrawing preferentially (though the *defender* may choose to do so. The corollary is that the rules also do not permit the attacker to allow the defender to preferentially withdraw certain ships but not others.

Of course, what I have set forth is what I think a *literal* interpretation of said procedures and rules. IMHO it simply makes sense that the attacker can allow the defender to withdraw certain units, but not others - all I am saying is that the rules *as written* do not permit it when one of the governing principles of rule interpretation in F&E is that "if a rule does not permit something, that something is not allowed."

If FEDS believes that it is good for the game to allow the stated action, then I would suggest that FEDS propose that a new rule be added (e.g., (523.634) which states that an attacker may choose to allow enemy X-ships and F-ships to withdraw, but deny such permission to other enemy units.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 28, 2022 - 05:42 am: Edit

(523.352) FEDS recommends modifying the rule to read:

(523.352) X-ships may not be used as ad hoc escorts (515.34) in non-X-carrier or other non-X-groups; see (318.429) for FEGs. However, with the introduction of X-ship carriers, eligible X-ships may be used as ad hoc escorts for X-carriers and eligible X-groups (such as X-PFTs) so long as they are not prohibited types listed under (515.34); ad hoc X-ship types not prohibited use the same ad hoc escort rules under (515.3) and would lose all other X-effects.

---

Quote:

(523.352) X-ships may not be used as ad hoc escorts (515.34) in carrier or other groups; see (318.429) for FEGs. The only other exception is that two escorts (which must be Federation X-ships of size class 4) could be assigned to the Federation GVX under the normal rules for ad hoc escorts; they would lose all other X-effects.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, April 01, 2022 - 03:04 am: Edit

(526.353) FEDS recommends modifying this rule as follows:

(526.353) To reflect their ability to serve as an emergency escort in desperate conditions, one uncrippled FCR could be added to any carrier group after any combat round during the Combat Phase (during which carrier groups cannot otherwise be formed, reformed, broken up, reinforced, or have ships removed from or added to them); see the SoP (105.0) for details. Such an FCR would be treated as the innermost escort not as the smallest (308.111). It could replace a lost escort or be considered the one additional escort allowed. Once added to a carrier group, the FCR could not be removed from it until the end of the Combat Phase or when carrier groups are permitted by rule to form or reform. Federation CVBG and CVEGs as used by all empires are each counted as a single combined carrier group for the purposes of this rule. Each eligible carrier group may only add one FCR as an emergency escort during a combat phase.

---

Quote:

(526.353) To reflect their ability to serve as an emergency escort in desperate conditions, one uncrippled FCR could be added to any carrier group during the Combat Phase (during which carrier groups cannot otherwise be formed, reformed, broken up, reinforced, or have ships removed from or added to them).Such an FCR would be treated as the innermost escort not as the smallest (308.111). It could replace a lost escort or be considered the one additional escort allowed. Once added to a carrier group, the FCR could not be removed from it until the end of the Combat Phase.

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, April 12, 2022 - 04:29 pm: Edit

THIS WAS DONE A LONG TIME AGO.

(442.83) Depot Repair Tracks (424.__) should read Depot Repair Track (424.11). Reason: Correct Reference for Depot Repair Track is (424.11). Thomas Mathews 12 Apr 2022

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 30, 2022 - 02:59 am: Edit

Can someone comb the rulebooks for fractional references to KR spare parts; we want to make sure these references are decimals and not fractions as it is better for record keeping. Thanks.

FEDS
==========
SVC: mega-sigh

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 30, 2022 - 04:32 am: Edit

FEDS Recommends modifying the following text from the AO Penal Ship rules:

(528.11) REMOVE the note: "[Note: Only two D6J counters are provided; use a Ship-# counter until one D6J is lost and replaced with a D5J.]".


ADD TEXT:
(528.13) OTHER PENAL SHIPS: Additional penal ships were added in other modules and their inclusion will be listed within the module rules or order of battle of the given scenario.

RATIONALE: The new counters produced in AO 2021 now include the missing third D6J.
FEDS - 30 May 2022

============

(528.211) EDIT to read:
Each year, the Klingons may produce a maximum of one penal cruiser by any means. If the Klingons have less than three penal cruisers at the start of the Production Step of a turn (see scenario OOBs and SITs for specific ships and availability), they must produce one penal cruiser during that turn or pay a penalty of five EPs.
RATIONALE: Other penal cruisers have been added to the game since the 2003 edition of AO. Also annualized the production to match other steps taken to annualize production within the game.
FEDS - 30 May 2022

===========

(528.212) EDIT to read:
The Klingons may also produce a maximum of one penal frigate by any means on each year. If the Klingons have less than four penal frigates at the start of the Production Step of a turn (see scenario OOBs and SITs for specific ships and availability), they must produce one penal frigate during the Production Step or pay a penalty of three EPs. The Klingons may use penal cruiser production capacity to produce a penal frigate but risks not having the production capacity and paying the penalty for not producing the penal cruiser as required.
RATIONALE: Other penal frigates have been added to the game since the 2003 edition of AO. Also annualized the production to match other steps taken to annualize production within the game and to allow a penal frigate to be substituted for a penal cruiser production slot.
FEDS - 30 May 2022

===========

(528.27) EDIT to read:
LIMIT: The Klingons may never have more than four penal frigates in service at any given time, including cripples. Additionally, they may never have more than three penal cruisers in service at any given time, including cripples. Additional penal ships could be produced beyond these limits at the capital shipyard, but are immediately placed in an inactive status. Any penal ships in inactive status (including interned then released penal ships over these limits) are unable to be used voluntarily in combat; if involuntarily forced into combat, they lose all penal ship capabilities, have an attack factor of zero, and cannot move out of the capital hex.
RATIONALE: The new AO counter sheet from 2021 removed the need to limit the total number of 'types' in service; this is also needed as additional penal ships have been added to the game since the 2003 edition of AO.
FEDS - 30 May 2022

==========

(528.421) EDIT to read:
A penal cruiser in a battle force can be assigned a “special mission”; penal frigates may not perform such missions.
RATIONALE: Additional penal ships have been added to the game since the 2003 edition of AO.
FEDS - 30 May 2022

==========

(528.432) EDIT to read:
The following enemy ships cannot be attacked by this method: formation bonus units, free scout, bases, hive ships, OPBs, hospital units, PDU/PGB/IDU//MSS/colonies, SAFs, FRD/FRX/PRD, LTFs, ENGs, convoys of any type, tugs acting as supply points or setting up bases or PDU/PGB/IDU/colonies/minor shipyards, ships in the support echelon (e.g., drone bombardment, ships sending fighters or PFs to the battle force), ships in the reserve echelon (in the hex, not the battle force), unbreakable groups, cloak decoys, SWAC shuttles, or other units prescribed by rule.
RATIONALE: Additional units have been added to the game since the 2003 edition of AO; note that 3FE and 3CPC are now separable units.
FEDS - 30 May 2022

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, May 30, 2022 - 07:41 am: Edit

SVC DID THIS, BUT HERE IS A GOOD TIME TO MENTION SOME THINGS ABOUT HOW TO DO REPORTS. TURTLE'S REVISED TEXT BELOW DOES NOT COVER THE ENTIRE EXISTING RULE, LEAVING ME TO WONDER IF HE MEANT THAT THE NON-INCLUDED PARTS WERE GOOD OR SHOULD BE DELETED. ALSO, IF YOU ARE JUST CHANGE 'half" to '0.5' THE RESTATING THE ENTIRE RULE IS A BAD WAY TO DO THINGS AS I HAVE TO COMPARE THE TEXT LETTER BY LETTER TO SEE WHAT YOU CHANGED AND GUESS WHY YOU CHANGED IT.

Replies to By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 30, 2022 - 02:59 am: Edit

(442.82) Each turn that an SPH, KRT, or 3FE (or a Klingon or Lyran Tug) can complete a trip from the Klingon capital to the Romulan capital, one turn of “KR spare parts” is credited to the Romulans. This is tug mission (509.1T). This does not cost the Klingons or Romulans any EPs, but the tug cannot carry EPs in addition to the parts. An LTT would bring in one-half of a turn of parts, which could not be used unless another half-turn was delivered or purchased should read: Each turn that an KRT (or a Klingon or Lyran Tug) can complete a trip from the Klingon capital to the Romulan capital, one turn of “KR spare parts” is credited to the Romulans. This is tug mission (509.1T). This does not cost the Klingons or Romulans any EPs, but the tug cannot carry EPs in addition to the parts. An SPH or LTT would bring in 0.5 of a turn of parts, which could not be used unless another half-turn was delivered or purchased, an FE would bring in 0.33 of a turn of "KR spare parts" which could not be used unless another 0.67 of a turn of "KR spare parts" was delivered or purchased. Reasoning: a SPH has 32 cargo boxes on the SSD, a KRT has 61 cargo boxes on the SSD. Change fractions to decimals per Chuck Strong's request above. Thomas Mathews 30 May 2022

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 30, 2022 - 04:16 pm: Edit

(442.84) Recommend editing the following to read:

The Romulans can purchase up to one extra turn of spare parts (via Orion smuggling) per year, but this costs 10 EPs; factional amounts may be purchased at 1 EP per 0.1 turn of spare parts.

RATIONALE: Annualized rule. Additional units added to the game after AO carry small amounts; APT/PRT/FDX from SO carry 0.1 turns.

Original text:

---

Quote:

(442.84) The Romulans can purchase one extra turn of spare parts (via Orion smuggling) each spring, but this costs 10EPs. A half-turn costs 5 EPs.

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, May 30, 2022 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Mike, it is not a contradiction. The SPH is moved from the beginning where Tugs are described to where the LTT is described. In the middle there is a "should read: " where the rule is restated with the recommended changes.

I should also note that (516.33) limits the SPH to 0.5 Turn of spare parts.

===========

FEDS CONCURS

Recommended edit:

(442.82) SUPPLY CHAIN: The Romulans may obtain additional spare parts from the Klingons. Transport units can pick from the Klingon capital and deliver "KR spare parts" to the Romulan capital using tug mission (509.1T). Tugs, convoys, and military convoys, can transport one turn of spare parts. LTTs (including the SPH) can transport 0.5 turns of spare parts. Theater transports (including Romulan FE/QFE) can transport 0.3 turns of spare parts. Special transports can carry 0.1 turns of spare parts. Future expansions may have similar missions. This does not cost the Klingons or Romulans any EPs, but the transporting unit cannot carry EPs in addition to the parts. Only one complete turn of spare parts may be used during a turn. The Romulans can send EPs back to the Klingons in the same ship but do not have to do so unless they agreed to.

RATIONALE: Units added since AO 2003; clarity.

FEDS - 30 MAY 2022

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 31, 2022 - 05:04 pm: Edit

DONE

(318.428) Change the reference of small-scale combat from (318.7) to (310.0). RATIONALE: Rule (218.7) is now obsolete.
FEDS 31 MAY 2022

==============

(314.25) Remove the reference to (318.7) as it is now obsolete.
FEDS 31 MAY 2022

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 23, 2022 - 04:35 pm: Edit

Chuck asked a question about 523.36 and it seemed to be resolved by the existing text so i moved all of that to DONE and went on to other things. If this wasn't right, send me what to change and why to change it.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, June 01, 2022 - 04:19 pm: Edit

DONE

(523.313) FEDS recommends editing the rule to read:

(523.313) X-scouts, escorted and escorting X-ships, crippled X-ships, and X-bases cannot use this effect. True X-Maulers‡ (329.0) can only use their own inherent X-mauler capability.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, June 01, 2022 - 04:41 pm: Edit

(528.54) FEDS Recommends adding this rule:

(528.54) X-SHIP VARIANTS: Some penal X-ships‡ where introduced late in the General War. The Klingons may produce these ships as replacements and as permitted by their SIT data.

RATIONALE: The D5JX in TO is now available in Y183.
FEDS - 1 JUN 22

============

(528.24) FEDS Recommends adding this rule:

DAMAGED penal ships must be repaired as soon as possible. For every unrepaired penal ship the Klingons have at the end of the Production Step, they pay a penalty of two EPs for a penal cruiser and one EP of a penal frigate frigate.

RATIONALE: The loss of a penal frigate has a lesser impact than the loss of penal cruiser; given the choice in replacement at the same time, one would want to replace the more valuable unit first.
FEDS - 1 JUN 22

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, July 03, 2022 - 03:38 am: Edit

DONE

(441.412) Modify to read: ...SFBs, SBs, STBs, BTS, BS, and PDUs (including variants of these) get PF modules free at the same time as the free PFs; MB, OPBs, CBs, FDUs, and FRD/FRXs do not receive free PF modules.
Raitionale: Includes new added units in other modules and specifically excludes other units that cannot receive free PF modules. FEDS - 3 July 2022

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, July 20, 2022 - 09:15 pm: Edit

DONE

(523.326) FEDS Recommends adding this rule:

(523.326) Hydran X-fighters use advanced technology and are exempt from this rule.

RATIONALE: X-tech rules typically have minimal to no effect or advantage over other X-tech units. FEDS - 20 JULY 2022

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, July 21, 2022 - 12:36 am: Edit

(523.34) FEDS recommends changing first line to read this rule to read:

(523.34) ENEMY SFG: Non-X stasis ship have a reduced effect on uncrippled X-ships (ignore this rule if the stasis unit is an X-ship)
To reflect this:

(523.341) If the target is an X-ship, then the die roll under (312.231) is modified by a +1.

---

Quote:

(523.341) If the target is an X-ship, then the die roll is modified by a +1.

(523.342) In the case of a random targeting selection, the SFG player can only designate an X-ship for position “1” in the random target array (312.232), can only select an X-ship in position “2” if there are no non-X ships in the enemy battle force, and cannot select an X-ship for position “3” (which would have to be left blank). The defending player cannot be obligated to put an X-ship into position “4” and could leave this vacant if he has no non-X ships. Positions “5” and “6” must be filled but could be filled with non-X ships.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 11, 2021 - 05:10 pm: Edit

(314.28) Note that any alternative attack must use the Single Combat Table, not the regular combat system, unless it qualifies for the exceptions in (318.7). Should read (314.28) Note that any alternative attack must use the ESSC (323.0), not the regular combat system, unless it qualifies for the exceptions in (323.11). Rational is the only replacement of (318.7) with (323.0). Thomas Mathews 5 Aug 2009 SVC THINKS THIS IS OBSOLETE AS 323 WAS DELETED AND 310 REWRITTEN.
SENT TO STAFF 6 OCT 2021

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 11, 2021 - 05:26 pm: Edit

STAFF?
(443.32) This rule also covers the CVH and NHV which had not been added to the game at the time this rule was written. SEEMS TO BE THE WRONG RULE NUMBER.
SEEMS TO BE PART OF OVERSIZED CARRIER WINGS.
SENT TO STAFF 6 OCT 2021

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, June 14, 2021 - 07:36 am: Edit

Q: Is blockade-running an acceptable substitute (or concurrent with) Romulan limited war raids (314.14) and (314.3) to move KR parts (320.512) from Klingon space to Romulan space?
A: No, by rule (314.32) the Romulans can conduct raids into the Federation (only). They cannot raid Tholian, Gorn, or other territory. Rule (314.32) is a specific rule that allows for pre-war raids into the Federation only.

Recommend the following:

(314.33) Add at end of rule: No Special Raids (320.0) of any type may be used during the time period (314.3) is in effect. The Q&A asks specifically about blockade runs which is a form of special raids, but should apply to all types. Thomas Mathews 14 Jun 2021

SVC AGREES NO BLOCKADE RUN, BUT WHY OUTLAW OTHER TYPES OF SPECIAL RAID?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 17, 2021 - 04:47 am: Edit

This is the sort of thing that drives me crazy. I could not follow the original question and if the final post answers it I still don't know what to insert or where. Even if there is something to insert I wonder if it's in BS-310 not AO-314?
=======
By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, December 17, 2013 - 10:43 pm: Edit
A problem with 314.244 is that you can have raiding ships (and defenders) much larger than are allowed in SSC. There could be more than four defenders.
I suggest that if offensive/defensive compot levels are exceeded (and the exceeding player declines to voluntarily use reduced offensive/defensive compot), or if there are more than three defending ships involved in combat, then normal combat is used rather than SSC.
For example, a LGE(with PT) could raid using a casual PF marker with 4 PFs, for much more than 16 offensive / 19 defensive compot. It would have 25 offensive and defensive compot for SSC purposes in this case. Many ships can go to this level.
==
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - 08:59 am: Edit
Richard that is covered under (310.115) in the Small Scale Combat rules themselves.
==
By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - 10:19 am: Edit
You completely misunderstand me Turtle.
What I am saying is that the raid rules _require_ ASSC to be used, but SSC does not cover more than three ships on a side, and in my opinion should not be _required_ to be used if SSC's limits on compot are exceeded.
=
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - 02:18 pm: Edit
FEDS concurs with REB.
=
SVC: I just need a report like this: "Go to rule xxx.xx and after the word "raid" insert the following text: "abcde fg hij klmnop qrst."

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 17, 2021 - 04:15 pm: Edit

317.51 SCOUT PODS
Somebody check the new countersheets. I swear we gave somebody a scout tug and I think the wyns have some drone bombardment pods. They need to be listed here.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 17, 2021 - 05:45 pm: Edit

THIS NEEDS TO BE SENT BACK TO ME AS A LINE ITEM
(523.143 – supply transport interaction with X-ship (CL#)
FEDS: NOT ENOUGH INFO FOR ACTION. Request staff assistance.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 17, 2021 - 06:36 pm: Edit

(525.134 – [note interaction vs (525.43)] JUST WHAT INTERACTION IS THIS.

FEDS: NOT ENOUGH INFO FOR ACTION. Request staff assistance.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, June 28, 2022 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Once again, apologies in advance if this has beeen addressed already:

(527.27) GVX: According to my copy of the 2003 revision of the Advanced Operations rulebook,

This ship was a variant of a survey ship but for purposes of F&E is not a survey ship.

<This ship was a variant of the Federation GSX (a counter for which is provided in F&E Tactical Operations). The GVX may not be used as a survey ship for scenarios set during the General War. It may be deployed to the Federation off-map zone in post-war scenarios, as shown in the Driving Winds scenario in F&E ISC War.

This ship was a variant of the Federation GSX (a counter for which is provided in F&E Tactical Operations). The GVX was not be used as a survey ship during the General War.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 23, 2022 - 03:53 pm: Edit

REVISED TEXT FOR VARIOUS RULES.

(523.423) X-bases can be produced by converting an existing non-X-base to X-technology or by upgrading an existing X-base to an allowed larger X-base. The cost in XTPs is given in the Ship Information Tables; see (523.415) which allows up to half of this cost to be paid in EPs.

(525.55) X-FIGHTER MODULE: X-fighters on X-bases are operated from X-fighter modules (FXM); costs are in the SITs and must be paid with XTPs. FXMs can only be on X-bases. X-bases could use available non-X-fighters.

(526.353) To reflect their ability to serve as an emergency escort in desperate conditions, one uncrippled FCR could be added to any carrier group after any combat round (during which carrier groups cannot otherwise be formed, reformed, broken up, reinforced, or have ships removed from or added to them); see the Sequence of Play (105.0). Such an FCR would be treated as the innermost escort not as the smallest (308.111). It could replace a lost escort or be considered the one additional escort allowed. Once added to a carrier group, the FCR could not be removed from it until the end of the Combat Phase or at a point when carrier groups are permitted by rule to form or reform. Federation CVBGs (and CVEGs used by all empires) are each counted as a single combined carrier group for purposes of this rule. Each eligible carrier group may only add one FCR as an emergency escort during any given combat phase.

(528.212) The Klingons may also produce a maximum of one penal frigate by any means during each. If the Klingons have less than four penal frigates at the start of the Production Step of a Spring turn, they must produce one penal frigate during the Production Step or pay a penalty of three EPs. The Klingons may use penal cruiser production capacity to produce a penal frigate but doing so risks not having that production capacity on the second turn of a given year and this would require them to pay the penalty for not producing the penal cruiser as required.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Thursday, January 13, 2022 - 03:47 pm: Edit

ROMULAN MODULAR DREADNOUGHT TABLE as found in the annexes of AO 2003 edition (p. 65), referencing rule (525.64) and (525.65).

Table entries for the OmniHawk with SpH-B and -G modules read: 11-11(8)/6(4) and 11-11GG/6G respectively.

They should read: 11(8)/6(4) and 11GG/6G respectively.

RATIONALE: all other values where the attack factor and defense factor are the same list a single unified number instead of splitting the numbers with a dash.

This table should also add a rule reference number to it

-Mike Dowd 13 Jan 2022

=======
WHILE SVC SEES NO POINT IN WASTING TIME ON THIS, AS 11 AND 11-11 ARE THE SAME, HE COULD NOT FIND THAT TEXT/TABLE IN THE 2022 VERSION OF THE AO RULEBOOK AND WONDERS IF WE ARE MISSING SOMETHING WE NEED OR IF IT GOT SUBSUMED INTO SOMETHING THAT IS IN SOME OTHER PLACE.
=========
found in file: (758.0)FEDS: this annex is outdated and superseded by the modern SITs which are the most up to date and the go-to source; recommend annex deletion to avoid confusion.
SVC ASSUMES THIS TOOK CARE OF IT.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, February 26, 2022 - 10:52 pm: Edit

(314.245) - If the PFT is destroyed or forced to retreat, the PFs are destroyed -after they- conduct their assigned attack and =before they= conduct a raid.

If the 'after they' refers to the PFs (-after the PFs- do their attack), what does the 'before they' refer to (=before the ??= conducts the raid)?

SVC CAN FIND NO STAFF REPLY TO THIS.

FEDS: RECOMMENDS correcting the wording from:

"...and before they conduct a raid."

TO:

...but not before they conduct a raid.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 19, 2022 - 03:41 am: Edit

SVC COULD NOT MAKE THE REQUESTED ADDITION AS IT WOULD DUPLICATE AND POSSIBLY CHANGE EXISTING TEXT. THE FULL TEXT OF THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE RULE IS BELOW:

(525.23T) FEDS Recommends adding the following text:

HDWs‡ in transport mode function as limited theater transports which includes the the Hydran LNH-T (525.25); the Lyran JGP cannot be assigned this mission per (525.242). HDWTs cannot transport or use pods, pallets, modules, MBs, or ground bases per (509.22) and do not have the 'U' designator.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, July 25, 2022 - 01:55 pm: Edit

(528.212) FEDS: ADD MISSSING WORD 'turn':

The Klingons may also produce a maximum of one penal frigate by any means during each turn.

SVC DID THIS 18 AUG 22

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, July 28, 2022 - 01:48 pm: Edit

(617.0) Please correct author byline to read Stephen V. Cole (and SPP?) and add Lar Bergen to the 2022 Update team by-line.

LAR ADDED, SVC DIDN'T WRITE THIS

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, July 28, 2022 - 01:56 pm: Edit

ADDED

(108.3) Recommend adding the "Pi" half PF flotilla symbol to the list.